BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Canterbury City Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 8 January.

Leeds City Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 8 January.

Nottingham City Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 8 January.

Reading Borough Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 8 January.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Payday Lenders

Ann McKechin: What assessment he has made of the effect of payday lenders in areas of social deprivation.

Jo Swinson: The Government are not aware of any robust research that quantifies the effect of payday loans on areas of social deprivation, but I expect that there are links. We are very concerned about the findings of the interim report from the Office of Fair Trading’s payday compliance review and strongly support any enforcement action that the OFT takes. Payday lending can work for some people in some circumstances, but it is not a solution to long-term financial difficulty.

Ann McKechin: Scotcash, which represents many vulnerable families in Glasgow, has brought to my attention a payday loan agreement in which the APR is
	a staggering 7,200,000%. Given that Which? has indicated that more than 48% of those who take out payday loans believe that they will not be able to repay them, is it not now time for the Minister to commit to firm statutory regulation in 2013 rather than relying on wishy-washy voluntary codes?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady raises two specific issues in her question. Although there is concern about high interest rates, just as when someone hires a car for three days they do not look at the annual cost of doing so, with short-term credit the APR is not necessarily the most relevant statistic. The hon. Lady’s second point was on affordability assessments and the detrimental effect of people being lent money they should not be lent when debt advice would be much more appropriate. That is a significant concern. The Government are considering the OFT’s review and the OFT is already taking action—it has opened formal investigations into several payday lenders. We expect the final report early in the new year and the Government are committed to ensuring that we take action on this issue.

Green Manufacturing Jobs

Alex Cunningham: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on investment in green manufacturing jobs.

Vincent Cable: I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to discuss energy and climate change policies, including investment in green manufacturing jobs in the north-east and elsewhere. We are committed to supporting green technologies including offshore wind, for which a sector strategy is to be published in the spring.

Alex Cunningham: On Teesside and elsewhere in north-east England we have seen tremendous investment in green industries, but we have also seen billions of pounds-worth of contracts for British offshore wind farms placed abroad in Germany and Holland. I had hoped there would be provisions in the Energy Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday, to ensure that British firms got British jobs. There are no such provisions. Has the Secretary of State suggested any amendments to the Energy Bill to ensure that we get British jobs?

Vincent Cable: We are pursuing this not through legislation but through practical action and we are working with the developers’ forum to try to ensure that at least 50% of supply chain work comes back to the UK. We cannot do that unless we have the capacity, which is why we have established the catapult centres in the north-east and Glasgow to develop basic technology as well as the six renewable engineering centres, which will develop our engineering capacity.

Adrian Bailey: A small business in my constituency conveyed to me that it has considerable doubts about the implementation of the green deal and is therefore reluctant to invest in training for new employees and to make any other investment that might be appropriate to meet the demands
	of the green deal. What reassurance can the Minister give that the green deal will be implemented and that those opportunities will be there for small businesses?

Vincent Cable: I know that my colleague the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change attaches enormous importance to the green deal. It is, as I understand it, completing its state aid clearance in Brussels. When it is launched there will be a major incentive for people to improve their homes and to develop jobs on the back of that.

Iain Wright: The Minister of State tells the Institute of Directors that his Secretary of State sometimes escapes his electronic tag, while the Energy Secretary has to slap down his Minister of State over wind energy, so investors no longer know what Government policy is and Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers are too busy tracking the Secretary of State to help create clarity and green manufacturing jobs. Given that this is the season of good will, cannot the hostilities cease? Will the Secretary of State ask for permission from his Minister of State at least to undo his electronic tag a notch or do, and will not BIS and DECC Ministers snuggle up together to watch “Strictly”, eggnog in hand, and promise to come back in 2013 determined to focus on British enterprise and industry, not departmental infighting and ministerial surveillance?

Vincent Cable: While we are on our links with the criminal underworld, perhaps I should explain to the House that I have responsibility for offender learning, and one of my plans for the new year is to lay on a basics economics class for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

Strike Action

John Baron: What plans the Government have to make it a requirement that more than 50% of the eligible membership must approve strike action for it to take place.

Jo Swinson: We have no such plans.

John Baron: With tube strikes planned for this Christmas, I suggest that it is not right that a minority of employees, particularly in the public services, can hold employers and the public to ransom. May I urge the Government to revisit this one?

Jo Swinson: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Obviously, we are pleased that the CrossCountry and ScotRail strikes have been called off. Dialogue is always the best way to resolve these issues. Strike action is a sign of failure on both sides, so resolving the issues is always the best solution. On the subject of a minimum turnout and vote, I gently point out to my hon. Friend that his Conservative colleague, Nick Alston, is the new police and crime commissioner for Essex and was elected with the support of 6.6% of the electorate.

Natascha Engel: The right to withhold one’s labour is a mark of a country’s democracy. Does the Minister agree that any move to restrict that right is a move in an anti-democratic direction?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is also worth noting that strikes and industrial action at present are at historically low levels. That is a sign of positive industrial relations and is to be welcomed. Trade unions play a very important role, and although the headlines generally focus on industrial action and strikes, the excellent work that they do on training and resolving workplace disputes often does not hit the headlines and should be commended. We always keep issues under review, but it is fair to say that the industrial action laws and situations are generally working well.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Exports)

Mark Pawsey: What steps he is taking to increase the number of small and medium-sized enterprises which export to international markets.

Mary Macleod: What steps he is taking to increase the number of small and medium-sized enterprises which export to international markets.

Michael Fallon: Exporting is a key part of the Government’s plans to return the economy to sustained and balanced growth. That is why we have increased funding to UK Trade and Investment in the autumn statement—an extra £140 million over the next two years—enabling UKTI to double the number of small and medium-sized firms supported from 25,000 to 50,000 by 2015.

Mark Pawsey: Automotive Insulations is a supplier to the motor industry based in my constituency and has increased turnover from £3 million to £14 million over the past few years, expanding its business to supply European motor manufacturers as well as those based in the UK. The current advice and support from UKTI is to focus on fast-growing markets outside Europe, but does the Minister agree that starting to export is a very big step for a small or medium-sized business and it is often easier to start exporting by supplying to our closest neighbours?

Michael Fallon: I congratulate Automotive Insulations on its extraordinary success over the past few years. Of course for an automotive company it may make sense to start with helping to penetrate the European supply chains, but in due course it may want to look further afield. In the end, this is a matter for the company to decide, but of course it is for the Government to provide help and advice.

Mary Macleod: Brentford and Isleworth is one of the fastest growing areas for new businesses in the country, with an increase of about 9%. It is important that we encourage SMEs to export around the world so that people can experience what is great about buying British. Will my right hon. Friend support and attend a trade and investment fair that I would like to organise for west London in the springtime, which will give local businesses more information on breaking into emerging markets and help them grow for the future?

Michael Fallon: I would be delighted to help with that event in any way I can, and I will ensure that officials from Shand house, UK Trade and Investment’s regional London office, help as much as they can, too. I am aware of the exporting success of companies in west London. We would like to do everything we can to assist my hon. Friend.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will know that Yorkshire has a large number of manufacturing firms that export all over the world. They are particularly strong in the green sector, which the Secretary of State left out of his description a few moments ago—I am sure that he did not mean to, because he has been very supportive of manufacturing in Yorkshire. The fact of the matter is that the Treasury is the problem. We need more leadership from the Treasury and co-ordination across all Government Departments to ensure that we have the right skills and the appropriate level of investment in the manufacturing industry for this time.

Michael Fallon: I am very surprised to hear that kind of criticism after an autumn statement that increased investment allowances, announced a further round of regional growth funding and further lifted the burden of taxation on British business. British business has welcomed the autumn statement. I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to read it again.

Jim Shannon: Small and medium-sized businesses are clearly the heart of the community as they create and maintain jobs. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we have a UK strategy that enables all parts of the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland in particular, to benefit from international markets?

Michael Fallon: UKTI is UK-wide and, of course, does everything it can to support exports from every part of the United Kingdom. As I have said, there is an increased focus on helping small and medium-sized firms to export, which is why we are providing a new facility from April to extend credit totalling £1.5 billion for small firms that need it for longer term financing—three to five years—for contracts overseas.

Eric Ollerenshaw: The improvements the Minister mentions with regard to UKTI are being recognised in Lancashire, with much more outreach work with local chambers of commerce and Members of Parliament. How will he build on that, particularly with smaller businesses that, as other Members have mentioned, often lack the personnel to attend conferences during the day?

Michael Fallon: Let me reassure my hon. Friend that UKTI will continue its outreach activity in Lancashire and the rest of the country to encourage and support as many businesses as possible. Exporting is vital for our economy and exports are now increasing again, which is why UKTI was given such a boost in the autumn statement. That means UKTI is increasing its number of international trade advisers, and we are also placing officials from UK Export Finance in the regional offices so that more businesses, particularly small businesses, can benefit from their advice.

Business Bank

David Amess: What recent progress he has made on the establishment of a business bank.

Vincent Cable: The statement I have laid before the House today details recent progress, including the appointment of individuals to chair the bank’s advisory group and lead work on the institution’s design. Good progress is also being made on designing the bank’s interventions. To that end, my officials have been engaging closely with challenger banks, non-bank lenders, the main high street banks, financial advisory firms and financial services representative bodies.

David Amess: Although I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to funding the business bank quickly, in contrast to the 13 years of boom and bust under the last rotten Labour Government, will the Secretary of State reassure me that this measure, together with others, such as lending funds to businesses, will do much to reassure local businesses, given the challenges they currently face?

Vincent Cable: Of course I recognise that the borrowing position for many small companies dealing with the banks remains difficult. The evidence suggests that the funding-for-lending scheme that the Chancellor introduced is having a significant impact, and the British business bank will significantly improve the level of finance available to British businesses, especially SMEs.

Valerie Vaz: My constituent Sally Hares runs a business, Hare’s Moor, which repackages fresh products for making curries. She cannot access a loan of £5,000 for a repackaging machine. Will the Secretary of State meet her to find out which fund she can access so that she can grow her business?

Vincent Cable: I will certainly ensure that the hon. Lady and her constituent get good advice on the range of opportunities available to them. This is somewhat removed from the immediate concerns in establishing the bank, but she legitimately raises an important issue; many small companies cannot get credit.

Toby Perkins: The small business bank provides the last chance for this Government to take meaningful action that could ensure the vital flow of cash to Britain’s small businesses. The reality among the small businesses that I speak to is that they do not have any of the confidence that the Secretary of State seems to be exuding about the access to finance that is out there. There is a worrying lack of urgency and clarity about the Government’s plans. Will he publish a timetable for the establishment of the business bank and update us on progress with all the main elements that will need to be in place, such as when it will apply for a banking licence, when lending will begin, and when state aid approval will be sought?

Vincent Cable: There is certainly no complacency. We recognise that there is a very serious problem that ultimately resulted from the collapse of the banks in 2008-09, which has had devastating long-term consequences,
	and we are seeking to address that with a variety of interventions. There are positive things, including the emergence of challenger banks. When the advisory group meets early in the new year we will set out a detailed plan of action, including dates and objectives. I am happy to brief Labour Members when we have concrete detail.

Further Education Colleges

Simon Hughes: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that further education colleges provide a modern learning environment.

Duncan Hames: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that further education colleges provide a modern learning environment.

Matthew Hancock: The autumn statement released £270 million more in funding to upgrade further education colleges, and I can today announce that details of the college capital fund are being published by the Skills Funding Agency. These new funds take to over £1 billion investment in college capital in this Parliament, because the Government believe in helping everybody to reach their potential.

Simon Hughes: The Government’s commitment to further education is very clear and very welcome. Ministers’ commitment to making sure that the merged Southwark and Lewisham college in my constituency is a success is particularly welcome. Given that we have now heard that the college intends to keep a major presence on the Bermondsey and Waterloo sites, may I encourage Ministers to continue to support the progress of developing a major educational campus, ideally including the university technical college and the secondary school, on the Bermondsey site?

Matthew Hancock: The right hon. Gentleman and I had an extremely productive meeting with stakeholders on the future of Lewisham college, which is soon, as he says, to change its name, and I hope that a resolution can be brought that satisfies all parties.

Duncan Hames: Wiltshire college’s Chippenham campus missed out on a £36 million rebuild during the fiasco that was the Learning and Skills Council’s capital programme under the previous Government. The college now has more focused plans to build an engineering facility at the Chippenham campus. Will the Minister ensure that college campuses that missed out while the sun shone get more than their roofs fixed this winter?

Matthew Hancock: Wiltshire college has already undertaken building works up to the value of £6 million, including through the third stage of the capital grants that were released this September. However, I hear very clearly the hon. Gentleman’s call for work at the Chippenham campus, and I look forward to receiving his submission. As I say, the details of the investment fund have been published today, so work can proceed apace.

Nicholas Dakin: Can the Minister confirm that as a result of the current plans for further education loans, his Department forecasts 100,000 fewer learners in the sector? What is he going to do to make sure that does not happen?

Matthew Hancock: We are working very hard to ensure that those over the age of 24 in advanced learning have the opportunity to take out a loan if required. We are ensuring as best we possibly can that the process goes through smoothly and, most importantly, that everybody knows of the opportunities that are available due to the loans.

Sheila Gilmore: What steps is the Minister taking to work closely with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that obstacles do not come in the way of people trying to enter further education while they are in periods of unemployment? I have a constituent who had to give up a course because the DWP failed to inform the college on time that she was on the relevant benefit to get fee exemption.

Matthew Hancock: For far too long the skills system and employment system have not interacted well and have not spoken to each other. I probably spend more time with the employment Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), than with any other Minister outside my Department. I had two meetings with him on Tuesday and will have three meetings with him today, so we are working extremely hard to try to bring to an end the inconsistencies that the hon. Lady rightly highlights and that have been there for far too long.

Andrew Selous: Central Bedfordshire college also lost out in all its attempts to get capital funding under the previous Government. Does the Minister have any words of encouragement for the college? Its buildings are old and need to be renewed.

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for Central Bedfordshire college. I am glad to say that the increased funding provided in the autumn statement means that those bids that narrowly missed out, such as that of Central Bedfordshire college, have a very good chance of proceeding at the next stage, not least because that college’s bid was very good value for money, though it fell down on some technical aspects. We are looking very closely at how we can proceed with the new funds available.

Gordon Marsden: As well as needing bricks and mortar, a modern learning environment in further education colleges means expanding qualifications and courses, particularly in science, engineering and technology. The Gatsby Foundation, backed by Lord Sainsbury, told Doug Richard’s apprenticeship review that we would need more than 400,000 technicians at levels 3 and 4 over the next eight years and that we could guarantee quality apprenticeships in that regard by linking them to professional registration. Does the Minister agree that that offers an excellent opportunity for FE colleges and others to take a lead,
	but that they need extra resources for those subjects now, not later, if older learners are not to be put off from becoming technicians, as we have argued, and his predecessor, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), agreed when making concessions on FE loans?

Matthew Hancock: There was rather a lot in that question. I certainly agree with Lord Sainsbury. The Gatsby Foundation does excellent work in producing more occupational qualifications that have the standing of the industries they support. More occupational qualifications in this country would be a very good thing, because we have serious skills shortages, not least, as the hon. Gentleman has said, in the STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—particularly engineering. We are doing everything we can, including working with Lord Sainsbury, to turn that situation around.

Construction Output Figures

Kelvin Hopkins: What assessment he has made of the latest construction output figures; and if he will make a statement.

Vincent Cable: The latest Office for National Statistics figures show that the seasonally adjusted volume of construction output fell by 2.5% in the third quarter of 2012. The volume of new construction orders, however, rose by 5.4% in the third quarter of 2012.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but the fact is that construction is in deep recession, with output falling by 10% between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the third quarter of this year. Industry is, indeed, in crisis. Is it not time for the Government to boost construction, including a programme of local authority house building to house the almost 2 million households on waiting lists?

Vincent Cable: Certainly, the construction industry has had a torrid time ever since the collapse of the bubble in residential and commercial property. I know that there is a lot of distress in the sector, but there is some indication of orders improving. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have taken action in the past few months. In September, we launched the programme of guarantees for social housing bodies to proceed with construction and raise capital for that purpose, and the autumn statement announced £5.5 billion-worth of new commitments, mainly through guarantees, for infrastructure projects.

Philip Hollobone: The Government themselves procure construction projects. A local business in my Kettering constituency is the sub-contractor on a major Ministry of Defence contract, yet its payment terms from the principal contractor have gone up from 60 days to 90 days to 120 days. Will the Secretary of State work with other Government Departments to make sure that sub-contractors are paid on time?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman raises issues in respect of late payment and the sub-contracting chain. One of the things that we are doing as part of the industrial strategy is, perhaps for the first time, bringing together the construction industry as a whole to work through supply-side issues, including late payment.

Anne McIntosh: Will my right hon. Friend look at the high level of regulation, particularly with regard to construction sites? Does he have any news on how we can deregulate further in order to allow construction to proceed more rapidly once planning permission has been given?

Vincent Cable: The red tape challenge is designed precisely to look at areas where regulation is excessive and inappropriate. On health and safety, however, construction sites are notoriously dangerous and we need to maintain basic standards.

British Antarctic Survey

Andrew Rosindell: What steps he plans to take to protect and support the work of the British Antarctic Survey following his decision not to merge that body with the National Oceanography Centre.

David Willetts: I saw the important work of our scientists when I visited the Falklands and the Antarctic last February. The Natural Environment Research Council has committed to maintain funding of the British Antarctic Survey at £42 million a year for the rest of this spending period. The NERC should, in future, have a discrete funding line for the Antarctic from within the ring-fenced science budget, subject to future spending reviews, to ensure that there is a visible UK commitment to Antarctic science and our presence in the region. It is a fitting tribute that the southern part of the British Antarctic Territory has been renamed Queen Elizabeth Land in honour of Her Majesty the Queen at the end of a glorious jubilee year.

Andrew Rosindell: The whole House and the entire nation will be delighted at the Government’s announcement that part of the British Antarctic Territory will be named after Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in this diamond jubilee year. The House is also delighted that the British Antarctic Survey has been rescued from the previous proposals. Is it possible for the British Antarctic Survey to work more closely with the Falkland Islands? Does the Minister recognise the importance of having British sovereign territories in that region of the world to conduct scientific research and endeavour?

David Willetts: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s work on behalf of the Falklands and the British presence in the Antarctic. There is already practical co-operation. I have seen for myself the support that the Falklands Islands provides to the British Antarctic Survey. While I was in the Falklands, I met the director of the newly created South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute in his office at Stanley cottage. Although the NERC cannot legally fund the institute, we are offering non-financial assistance by giving advice, hosting visits and facilitating partnerships with British universities.

Life Sciences

David Rutley: What support his Department is giving to the life sciences sector.

David Willetts: Last week, the Prime Minister launched the “One Year On” report for our life sciences strategy, which included a new commitment to sequence 100,000 genomes. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced an additional £100 million for life sciences research and, in the past year, more than £1 billion of private sector investment has been attracted to the UK on the back of Government initiatives for the life sciences. We are therefore succeeding in creating the right environment to attract global life sciences investment.

David Rutley: I welcome the Government’s progress report, “Strategy for UK Life Sciences—One Year On”, and the Minister’s strong support for this vital sector. Given the critical contribution of life sciences and pharmaceuticals to Macclesfield’s local economy, what plans does he have to build on this important momentum in the year ahead?

David Willetts: We need to do more and we can do more. We are going to work closely with British businesses, including AstraZeneca, which I remember visiting with my hon. Friend in his constituency earlier this year. That company has received a conditional offer through round 3 of the regional growth fund. We are continuing to back this very important, internationally competitive industry.

Copyright Law

John Whittingdale: What steps he plans to take to reform the law on copyright; and if he will make a statement.

Vincent Cable: I am taking a number of steps to reform copyright law, in response to the Hargreaves review. Today, I am publishing the Government’s decision on changes to copyright exceptions, which I believe will achieve the right balance between creators, rights holders and users. The document, “Modernising Copyright: A modern, robust and flexible framework”, has been placed in the Library.

John Whittingdale: Does the Secretary of State agree that intellectual property rights and copyright underpin the success of our creative industries, which are so important to the economy? Is he concerned that many in those industries feel that the Government, on the back of the Hargreaves report, will dilute their intellectual property rights, not least in the area of exceptions to copyright law?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right that the creative industries sector, which is crucial to the economy, depends heavily on intellectual property rights. However, we are dealing with a body of law that is extremely old—I believe that it goes back to Queen Anne. It certainly needs modification in the digital age. He is right that we need to move extremely carefully. That
	is why, over the last few weeks, we have been in discussions on some of the sensitive issues in relation to copying music and photography. When he studies the report in the Library, he will see that we have got the balance right between rights holders and liberalisation.

Regulation Costs

Edward Leigh: What estimate he has made of the costs incurred by businesses due to regulation since May 2010.

Michael Fallon: The Government are reducing the overall burden of regulation affecting business. From January we will further tighten the screw on regulation by doubling the challenge from one in, one out to one in, two out. The impact of regulation is independently verified and reported twice a year in the statement of new regulation. We published the fifth statement this week for the first half of next year, which forecasts that by July we will have reduced the annual cost of regulation to business by over £900 million.

Edward Leigh: I was told by a colleague that early in this Parliament a Minister responsible for deregulation—not the current Minister—rushed into a meeting with his colleagues to say that although his civil servants wanted to increase the number of regulations on business by 67 this month, with hard fighting he had beat them down to 57. That is still 57 extra regulations this month. Is my right hon. Friend going to bear down on that and ensure that by the time of the next general election there is a real, dynamic reduction in regulation on business?

Michael Fallon: Yes. This Government intend to be the first ever to reduce the overall burden of regulation during their time in office. If my hon. Friend looks at the fifth statement of new regulation, he will see that—significantly—more regulations will be removed over the next six months from January than will be added. As I said, the overall cost reduction to business is nearly £1 billion.

Andrew George: I welcome that approach, but are the Government also estimating the cost of a lack of regulation such as, for example, the practice of upward-only rent reviews for high street shops, irrespective of falling turnovers? Such rent reviews are heaping further costs on businesses and making them less viable.

Michael Fallon: There is downward as well as upward movement in that sector, but I will certainly refer the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the Minister for Housing.

Regulators (Fees)

Steven Baker: What recent assessment he has made of the level of fees charged to business by regulators.

Michael Fallon: Recent reviews by my Department through the focus on enforcement initiative have uncovered a range of problems reported by business
	about the way that more than 50 regulators enforce the law, including inconsistency and lack of clarity over the charging of fees.

Steven Baker: As my right hon. Friend will know, regulatory sloth and incompetence are currently damaging a business in my constituency and one in South West Bedfordshire. Will he take steps to ensure that regulators are not incentivised to damage businesses through unjustifiable fees?

Michael Fallon: I am aware of the issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency concerning the implementation of the biocidal products directive. Systemic, not just isolated, problems are damaging the relationship between regulators and industry. Last month we acted to stop regulator charging regimes that incentivised regulators to increase their costs to industry, and we will place a duty on regulators to bear down on costs and report publicly on how costs and fees are calculated. Regulators will have to demonstrate that they are efficient, and give industry the information it needs to hold regulators to account.

Manufacturing (Investment)

Gavin Williamson: What steps he is taking to encourage greater investment in the manufacturing sector.

Michael Fallon: Manufacturing is crucial to economic recovery. The autumn statement announced measures to encourage greater investment in manufacturing, including a significant increase in the annual investment allowance from £25,000 to £250,000; £310 million for the regional growth fund; and an extra £120 million for the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative. The House will also welcome the announcement by Nissan yesterday of a £250 million investment in a new premium brand car to be built in Sunderland, which the Government expect to support under the regional growth fund.

Gavin Williamson: The recent increase in capital investment allowances will create a massive boost for small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses in south Staffordshire and the west midlands. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that that will have on manufacturing businesses across the United Kingdom?

Michael Fallon: I expect the increase in capital allowances to have a positive effect. Under this Government, manufacturing share of gross domestic product is rising, but under the previous one nearly 1.7 million manufacturing jobs were lost, and our manufacturing share of GDP declined. The measures we announced in the autumn statement, together with the measures we have taken to rebalance our economy and put our public finances in order, leave British business very well placed to continue the recovery.

Nicholas Dakin: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We have already heard from the hon. Gentleman in substantive questions and it is not long before we will have the delight—I hope—of hearing
	from him again in topical questions. Members cannot, I am afraid, have two goes at substantives. One can almost have too much of a good thing.

Higher Education

Kerry McCarthy: What recent assessment he has made of his changes to higher education and to the level of student tuition fees; and if he will make a statement.

David Willetts: The proportion of English school leavers accepted by universities for 2012-13 was the second highest on record. Final data show that acceptance rates from disadvantaged areas increased. More students are getting into their first choice universities.

Kerry McCarthy: But UCAS data show that there was an overall 11% fall in applications for higher education in 2012-13, and early indications are that the number of applicants for 2013-14 will fall further. Is the Minister worried by that emerging trend, and if so, what will he do about it?

David Willetts: Of course, entry to British universities is competitive, and we have many more applicants than places, but we will continue to get across the message that no student has to pay up front to go to university, and that students start paying for university only if they are earning more than £21,000. That is a very fair way of financing our universities.

Julian Smith: What measures is the sizzling science and higher education Minister putting in place to ensure that applicants to universities have the very best information on the outcomes of their courses?

David Willetts: For the first time, we have required that key information sets contain the information that prospective students want about, for example, employment outcomes from particular courses at particular universities. People are entitled to that information—it was not available before, but now it is.

Mr Speaker: I gather that that is an example of the Minister sizzling.

Shabana Mahmood: I am afraid the Minister is trying to gloss over the facts of his record. The reality is that two years on from the Government’s decision to treble tuition fees to £9,000 a year, applications have dropped by 54,000, which is 11%; acceptances are down, as are the numbers of mature learners and part-time learners; his core and margin policy has caused nothing but chaos and confusion; his AAB policy has been a dramatic failure; and to top it all off, legitimate international students are choosing to go to our competitor countries to study as a result of Home Office policies. Is not the truth that the past two years under this Government have been a disaster for students and universities alike?

David Willetts: The fact is that the confusion is over the Opposition’s policies. We know they are planning to reduce fees to £6,000, but there is no indication of what
	they will do to compensate universities for the loss of those revenues. The only time the hon. Lady came to the House to explain her policies, it became clear she would abolish bursaries for students under access funds. Under this Government, we have more students going to university, well-funded universities and more students getting their first choice than ever before. We are proud of those reforms.

Business Start-ups

Seema Malhotra: What support he is providing for new business start-ups.

Matthew Hancock: There were 450,000 start-ups last year—54,000 more than in 2010, and the highest number on record.

Seema Malhotra: If women started businesses at the same rate as men start businesses, 150,000 extra businesses would start up in the UK each year, yet just 28% of those benefiting from the Government’s new enterprise allowance scheme are female. What Christmas present could the Minister give to women wanting to start businesses next year?

Matthew Hancock: We are extremely proud of the sharp rise in the number of start-ups under this Government, but we want to do more and to go further. If, as the hon. Lady says, women started businesses at the same rate as men, the number would rise still more. We are helping through the new enterprise allowance. We have extended start-up loans, and some of the brilliant schemes—such as the Peter Jones academy—that help young entrepreneurs to know what it takes to start a business are already having an effect. We are making rapid progress, but I want to do much more.

Internet Access (Rural Areas)

Harriett Baldwin: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the use of satellite broadband for delivering internet access in rural areas.

David Willetts: We see satellite broadband as an essential means to deliver faster internet access for rural communities, businesses and individuals. Everywhere in Britain can therefore access broadband via satellite. This is an issue we regularly discuss with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Harriett Baldwin: How will the latest round of European Space Agency negotiations support the UK companies that want to deliver satellite broadband to my constituents in West Worcestershire?

David Willetts: We got an excellent outcome from the European Space Agency ministerial last month. Britain is now the leader of the ARTES 2 programme for the development of the next generation telecommunications platform. It is great to see British businesses taking a
	lead here, and this will increase broadband speeds and reduce costs for UK users in rural and remote areas, making satellite broadband even more accessible.

Topical Questions

Ann McKechin: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Vincent Cable: My Department plays a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy through business, to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning.

Ann McKechin: Given the acknowledged need to get finance quickly to the SME sector, does the Secretary of State share my concern that the British business bank will not be fully operational until the autumn of 2014? Given that private sector models such as Aldermore have been up and running to a much quicker timescale, can he give an assurance that he will try to speed the process along at his end?

Vincent Cable: The business bank has already been established, and it will be up and running next year. Of course, the full clearance of European state aid, which is a necessary formality for certain kinds of lending, will take longer. I acknowledge the role of Aldermore and other banks, such as Metro and Handelsbanken, which is very important. This bank will complement and support them.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Does the Minister agree that it is the wide range of educational provision in the higher education sector that really benefits young people, and if so, what is he doing to increase the diversity of that provision?

David Willetts: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of diversity, and that is why we have liberalised the rules on the size of institutions that can take the name “university”, as a result of which 10 more higher education institutions fulfilled that criterion, seven of which have already received approval from the Privy Council to become universities.

Chuka Umunna: This has been a sad week for British retail. Comet has closed its doors after 79 years of trading. I am sure that the whole House will want to convey our deepest sympathies to the 6,900 employees who have subsequently lost their jobs at the worst possible time of year. Given that in less than a year the owners appear to have lost the £50 million dowry they received to buy the business and left the taxpayer with a £49.4 million bill, will the Secretary of State commit to publishing the findings of the inquiry he has set up into this affair?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the collapse of the Comet chain has caused great distress, not only through direct job losses but through the effect on the supply companies. There is also a large amount of unpaid credit—£230 million, I think—and not least the taxpayer stands to lose £50 million. He
	repeats some of the very serious allegations that are being made about the people involved in the company. I take the allegations very seriously and that is why I have asked my Department to conduct a thorough inquiry under the powers it has.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about publication. As it happens, under the law I am not allowed to publish the report, but I will try to ensure that he and his Front Bench colleagues are properly briefed whenever information becomes available.

Chuka Umunna: I am grateful for that reply. In the case of Comet, OpCapita has very serious questions to answer. Cases such as these are also raising questions about our insolvency regime in general, which—in spite of being one of the best in the world—needs to be improved. For example, the number of reports of directors being unfit to hold office has increased, but the percentage of directors being disqualified has fallen massively. The pre-pack procedure has been heavily criticised, and we could adopt elements of the US chapter 11 procedure here.
	The Department has said that it is reviewing the overall insolvency framework to see whether it is fit for purpose. For the benefit of the House, will the Secretary of State outline who is to do that review? Will there be a call for evidence, and when may we expect to be told the results?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this episode reveals wider possible failures in the system. There may well be better ways to handle insolvency—although it is fair to say that in general the British insolvency regime is regarded as one of the best internationally—and we should be open-minded about other approaches. The American chapter 11 system may well be better and I want to have a proper look at that. We are specifically going to have a look initially at a narrow issue concerning insolvency practitioners and their fees. The Insolvency Service is being looked at as part of the red tape challenge, which is examining the regulatory system and how it can be improved. I also want to review more broadly whether we can adopt better practices across the piece.

Mr Speaker: I call Richard Graham. Not here. That is the second time this has happened in a few days. The fellow has got to get himself sorted.

John Glen: I recently met Phil Downer, who runs a recruitment business, and he took me through the 14 pages of the new agency workers regulations that he has to fill in every time he recruits somebody for a few weeks. Will the Minister explain whether the red tape challenge is addressing this unnecessary regulation, which is a massive burden on a small businessman who is trying to get on in my constituency?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman is a strong supporter of businesses in his constituency. The red tape challenge is looking at a wide range of issues and he is right to highlight that. We need to ensure that there is proper paperwork when it is necessary, but we will review whether the current burden is appropriate and proportionate.

Seema Malhotra: Since the Davies report, we have seen an increase in the number of women in non-executive roles. However, the gender balance for executive roles has remained at approximately 5%. What plans does the Minister have to increase the proportion of women in non-executive and executive roles in 2013?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the issue of executive roles, which is more difficult to address than non-executive roles in the boardroom. The Government are taking action. The Women’s Business Council is looking at what specific steps can be taken and we expect its report in May. More than 60 companies have already signed up to the Government’s Think, Act, Report initiative, looking in detail at how they recruit, promote, retain and pay their women executives so that we can ensure that women are reaching the boardroom not just in non-executive roles but in executive roles.

Mel Stride: The UK has among the most generous maternity leave provisions in the world, which mean that some employers have to provide time off for employees for up to a year. This is particularly onerous for very small businesses. Will my hon. Friend look at the possibility of reducing the level of maternity benefits for micro- businesses that employ 10 people or fewer?

Jo Swinson: At this time of year, when we remember the Christmas story, we can be thankful that in the past 2,000 years not only has maternity care improved somewhat, but so has the recognition in society of the positive role that women, and mothers in particular, can play in the workplace. I recognise that it can be difficult for employers when an excellent employee is away for a year. That is why I hope that, as a strong champion for small business and as a father, my hon. Friend will welcome the Government’s plans to introduce shared parental leave, which will let mums and dads choose how they care for their children. Of course, that will mean that many mums will return to work in under a year, which will help to deal with the problem he outlines, as well as help dads to spend more time with their child in the early weeks of their child’s life.
	On the specific issue, approximately 1.5 million people become parents every year, and we would not want that talent pool to be dissuaded from applying to work for small businesses.

Mr Speaker: I think on the strength of that answer there is plenty of scope for an Adjournment debate in which, no doubt, we will hear about the Nordic nostrums and views about neanderthals from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who was scarcely able to contain himself a moment ago.

Nicholas Dakin: Sadly, people can be vulnerable to getting a Christmas debt hangover. The National Audit Office reported this week that debt management companies are making £0.3 billion a year. Will the Government take robust action in the new year to regulate debt management companies?

Jo Swinson: The Government are certainly looking very closely at debt management. The National Audit Office has looked at the Office of Fair Trading. It found that it has a positive role to play in enforcement action, and has been active in this area. We are trying to agree with industry a protocol to improve debt management and advice. We will continue to look at this carefully because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, this is important to many people.

Peter Aldous: The Under- Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), is due to visit Lowestoft college in the new year. I would be grateful if he could confirm that the additional funding for capital investment in further education colleges, further details of which he announced this morning, is available for refurbishment projects such as the one that the college has worked up and which will enable it to build on its excellent work in providing people with the skills needed in the energy sector?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I am looking forward to visiting Lowestoft college on 8 March. It narrowly missed out on a bid in the last round of funding, but, as we have discussed, more funding is available. I want the new funding to be targeted at colleges that have estate in either a poor or inoperable condition. One third of the college estate is in such a condition, having been left in that state by the completely shambolic FE policy of the Government that left office—thankfully—in 2010.

Julie Hilling: Bolton university is making up to 90 people redundant because of the fall in student numbers, while 60,000 of the young people awarded places at university last year did not turn up. Will the Minister admit that the tripling of fees has created chaos and will harm the British economy?

David Willetts: We do not recognise that description of what is going on. We have very enterprising universities, including Bolton, that are thriving as more students get their first choice of university than ever before. And, of course, there is no cap on the number of overseas students legitimately entitled to enter the country to study.

Neil Carmichael: In my constituency, we have a thriving manufacturing sector, but one area of concern I have is the availability of skills, especially in engineering. Does the Minister agree that we need to redouble our efforts on science, technology, engineering and maths—the STEM subjects—at school to ensure that we have a good pool of skills in that sector?

Matthew Hancock: It is critical that we turn around engineering to ensure that we have the engineering skills necessary to compete in the future. In Stroud and across the country, there are shortages of engineering skills, and this Government are addressing it.

Joan Walley: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the acquisition by Steelite International of Royal Crown Derby as a sign that we need to show leadership and increase regional growth funding? Will he meet me and other Stoke-on-Trent
	MPs to discuss the Government’s continued opposition to the anti-dumping measures against ceramic tableware from China? It is important that we invest in UK manufacturing on a level playing field. That is an issue that the Government need to address.

Michael Fallon: On the regional growth fund, the hon. Lady will know that the Chancellor announced another £310 million in the autumn statement, and 85% of the projects in rounds 1 and 2 have now started, but I hope to tell the House how we will apply the additional money early in the new year. I hope that Stoke will be one of the areas to benefit. The allegation about anti-dumping is a very serious one, and I am happy to meet her and her colleagues to discuss it further.

Christopher Chope: Do the Government believe in the right of each individual and business to choose the bank they wish to have operating on their behalf, and if so will the Government guarantee that no existing customer of Lloyds bank, whether a business or an individual, will be forced to transfer their account to the Co-op without their express consent?

Vincent Cable: The general principle of account portability and its being voluntary is absolutely right. I am aware that some banks are currently discharging their customers against their will, which is bad business practice but not something we can stop. I am not sure what particular objection the hon. Gentleman has to the Co-op. It is one of the new challenger banks that we welcome.

Bill Esterson: I send my sympathy to the Comet staff who have lost their jobs today, just five days before Christmas. When the Secretary of State carries out his review of what happened at Comet, will he look at how staff have lost bonuses and how staff who have served loyally for many years will not get their full redundancy packages, in spite of the fact that the Government are stepping in with £50 million?

Vincent Cable: The inquiry that the Department is now carrying out will be into the conduct of the directors, and various consequences will flow from that. We cannot investigate the wider social consequences, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right that severe loss has been suffered, not just by the workers but by the Government, who are having to make up the redundancy pool.

Andrew Jones: Companies in my constituency have contacted me about how interest rate swap product mis-selling is threatening their very futures. May I urge my right hon. Friend to work with colleagues across the Government to try to resolve this issue as quickly as possible?

Vincent Cable: I have already been working closely with the Bully-Banks group and the Federation of Small Businesses, which is deeply concerned about the problem. The scale of the scandal is becoming larger by the day, as more cases are uncovered. It is clear that the banks—or some of them—behaved extremely badly in the sale of such products. I am not fully satisfied that they are yet conforming with the spirit of the FSA’s advice on the
	matter; indeed, yesterday I met the chairman of the new regulatory authority to discuss with him how we can support small business more actively.

Natascha Engel: Further to that point, the banks and the FSA are dragging their feet, making a decision and then not making a decision on interest rate swaps. Meanwhile, perfectly viable small and medium-sized businesses are going to the wall. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the banks and the FSA make a decision quickly, so that businesses do not go under unnecessarily?

Vincent Cable: In relation to the speed of the process, I was assured yesterday that the FSA will complete early in the new year a pilot it has undertaken to identify the range of companies that might be assisted. That will then be rolled out to all companies. There is a genuine problem of definition. Some companies are sophisticated and took on these swaps quite conscious of the risks involved; others were mis-sold them. The borderline
	between the two is not absolutely clear, but I agree with the hon. Lady’s general proposition—a view that other Members share—that a lot of small businesses have been severely mis-sold products and need to be assisted.

George Freeman: The rising world population means that by 2050 we will need to double world production, albeit with half as much water, land and energy. Does the Minister agree that British agricultural science, not least at the Norwich research park, has a potentially huge role to play in helping the world to feed itself? May I welcome the agricultural science strategy and ask that it look to draw in as much investment from around the world into Britain’s science base as possible?

David Willetts: This is an area where British science has a lead. We have already invested more in the Norwich science park, which I visited with my hon. Friend, and we will continue to do so as part of our industrial strategy.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next year?

Andrew Lansley: The business for the week commencing 7 January 2013 will be:
	Monday 7 January—Remaining stages of the Trust (Capital and Income) Bill [Lords], followed by all stages of the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure, followed by debate on a motion to take note of a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2013, followed by debate on a reasoned opinion relating to the gender balance on corporate boards, followed by general debate on corporate tax avoidance. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 8 January—Second Reading of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.
	Wednesday 9 January—Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the statutory code of practice for pub companies, followed by a further debate on a subject to be announced.
	Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 10 January—General debate on dementia. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 14 January will include:
	Monday 14 January—Second Reading of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 15 January—Motion to approve the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013.
	Wednesday 16 January—Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 17 January—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 18 January—Private Members’ Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 10 and 17 January will be:
	Thursday 10 January—Debate on the third report of the Select Committee on Transport on competition in the local bus market.
	Thursday 17 January—Debate on the fourth report of the Select Committee on International Development on tax in developing countries, followed by debate on the sixth report of the Select Committee on International Development on Afghanistan.
	May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas? On behalf of the whole House, I should like to thank all the staff of the House who have kept the House and ourselves running smoothly: the Doorkeepers, the cleaners, the Clerks, the Officers and all the staff of the House and the House service. We wish a merry and peaceful Christmas to one and all.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the next parliamentary week, even though it is not the next chronological week. I join the Leader of the House in wishing you, Mr Speaker, the staff who work here and have served us so well throughout the year, and all right hon. and hon. Members a happy and enjoyable Christmas.
	Unfortunately, food banks had to feed almost 250,000 people this year. Independent figures from the Trussell Trust show that, in my own constituency, 295 children have been fed from food banks. Across the country, thousands of volunteers are helping hard-pressed families who are struggling to put any food on the table, and I pay tribute to their efforts. People are really struggling to make ends meet. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that in 21st century Britain people should not be struggling to feed their children because they have no money? At Christmas, that should be a particular source of shame, but yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister boasted that this showed the big society was working. How out of touch is he? When the coalition was formed, Ministers could barely complete a sentence without mentioning the big society. This year, as the idea has unravelled and been revealed to be little more than a PR gimmick, they have gone pretty quiet on the subject. May we have a debate on the big society, to give Government Members the chance to explain why, when 250,000 people have had to rely on food banks to be able to eat, the Government are giving a huge tax cut to a few thousand millionaires?
	I welcome yesterday’s written statement from the Home Secretary on the Hillsborough investigation and the overturning of the unjust inquest verdicts on the 96 who died. I also warmly welcome the Government’s decision that the Hillsborough single will not be subject to VAT. I welcome the court’s decision this week, but it does mean that the families of the victims, who have fought so hard for so many years, will now have to meet expensive legal costs to ensure that they are adequately represented at the new inquests. Given the exceptional circumstances, will the Leader of the House ask the Justice Secretary to look at whether the Government could meet the families’ costs?
	On Tuesday, Her Majesty the Queen made an historic visit to No. 10 to attend the Cabinet, to observe, not to participate in proceedings—much like the Deputy Prime Minister, in fact. Does the Leader of the House agree that it was a sign of Her Majesty’s tireless devotion to her duties that she was willing to put herself through such an experience? I have to admit that the photograph of the Cabinet meeting from the Evening Standard worried me. Where was the Leader of the House? I looked very carefully, but the right hon. Gentleman just was not there. What on earth is going on? I thought perhaps he was a closet republican, as he is from Cambridgeshire, but surely that cannot be the case. Then it occurred to me that perhaps the Prime Minister has simply had enough of him. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have now started a campaign to save him from the chop?
	To honour Her Majesty’s Cabinet visit, the Government have very generously named a tract of Antarctic wilderness after her and given her 60 place mats—both of which will no doubt be very useful. As it is Christmas, I have been looking for gifts for the Cabinet. Given the miraculous resurrection of the Government Chief Whip’s ministerial
	career, I thought he might like a copy of the Australian ex-Prime Minister John Howard’s autobiography, “Lazarus Rising”. We would all be grateful if the Chancellor spent his Christmas reading “Macro-economics for Beginners”. Given that every announcement from the Department for Education inevitably finds its way into the media before the Education Secretary has had a chance to make a statement to this House, I think he would benefit from a copy of “How Parliament Works”, which is an excellent book. I thought you, Mr Speaker, might enjoy a manual written for classroom teachers, “Managing Very Challenging Behaviour”. The Leader of the House might benefit from a copy of the railway timetable, and just about all his ministerial colleagues might benefit from a copy of the book by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), “How to be a Minister”.
	Given that this is the last business statement of the year, and provided that the predictions of the Mayan apocalypse are wrong, I look forward to seeing everyone back in the new year.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, not least for her concern about my whereabouts at the Cabinet meeting. I felt like a reverse Forrest Gump: instead of being always in the picture, I was suddenly out of it. The hon. Lady’s reference to the railway timetable is correct. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) that I have an insufferable knowledge of Letchworth Garden City railway station, where I spent an hour and three quarters. If anyone were to ask me for a debate on recent failings in performance on the east coast main line or by First Capital Connect, I would be very sympathetic to that request.
	The hon. Lady will recall that there was a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on food banks in Scotland and, indeed, that reference was made to the subject at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Questions. I think the availability of food banks is an illustration of how we care for each other in our communities. We do not want people to need them, but as discussed in BIS questions earlier, there are many reasons why people access them—including money problems, debt management, the ability to manage their resources and so forth. As the shadow Leader of the House says, the Trussell Trust has rightly been working across the country to establish better awareness of, and access to, food banks, and we should recognise and support that.
	I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she said about the Home Secretary’s written ministerial statement on a further investigation into Hillsborough and about what the Prime Minister said yesterday about VAT. She asked about legal aid. I can tell her and the House that the Government will provide funding for the legal representation of the bereaved Hillsborough families at the fresh inquests.
	At Christmas time, we look back at the past year and forward to the next one. After a year in which we have had the diamond jubilee, the Olympics and the Paralympic games, 2012 will be a year to remember for many positive reasons. At this time, however, we also need to think about the people who might be looking on 2012 with less happy memories—people who are bereaved, people who are lonely, people who are in trouble or in pain and, indeed, people who are in poverty. There may
	not be such great events next year as there were this year, but I hope that in 2013 we will have many smaller positive events that will enable us as a country to live in greater peace and progress.

Christopher Chope: When do we expect to consider the amendments made in the other place to the Bill on individual electoral registration. Did my right hon. Friend see the circular from the Electoral Commission yesterday, warning that if the Bill does not reach the statute book by the end of January, it will not be possible for the Electoral Commission to guarantee the introduction of individual electoral registration in time for the 2015 general election? Will he assure me and the House that the Bill will be in a fit state to achieve Royal Assent before the end of January?

Andrew Lansley: I did indeed see the Electoral Commission statement to which my hon. Friend refers. It is not for me to refer to business in the other place, but he will be reassured to know that the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which has to complete its Committee and remaining stages in the other place, will be considered in mid-January.

Natascha Engel: May I join the Leader and shadow Leader of the House in wishing you, Mr Speaker, and all the staff of the House, especially the Doorkeepers, a very merry Christmas?

Kevin Brennan: And the staff of Hansard .

Natascha Engel: Yes, and the Hansard writers, of course; we must not forget them. I also wish a merry Christmas to all the Back Benchers who have been so supportive of the Backbench Business Committee, by making representations to us to hold what have proved to be some of the most excellent debates held in the House this year. I thank them for their continued support for, and use of, the Backbench Business Committee.
	I seek clarification on a minor technical point about e-petitions. The House has now opened Westminster Hall on Monday afternoons for debates about e-petitions with 100,000 or more signatures. Are the slots exclusively for e-petitions generated from the Government website, or do they include any e-petitions that reach 100,000 signatures?

Andrew Lansley: I can confirm that the House opened Westminster Hall for debates on e-petitions through the Government’s website, on the basis that that gives us a degree of validation in relation to the petitions.

Rehman Chishti: Although there was an 8% increase in organ donations last year, 7,500 people are still waiting for an organ transplant. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this important topic?

Andrew Lansley: Although I cannot promise a prompt debate, it is an important subject, and my hon. Friend might, I hope, seek a debate through the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. We have made considerable progress in this area, however. Working on the January 2008 recommendations of the organ donation taskforce, over the last four years there has been a 40%
	increase in organ donor rates across the United Kingdom, and through the work of NHS Blood and Transplant—an organisation I know well—including its extension of transplant nursing support, I hope we can improve that record still further.

Barry Sheerman: May I add my voice to those of the shadow Leader and Leader of the House in wishing a happy Christmas to everyone, including—to the ire of the Prime Minister, no doubt—you, Mr Speaker? I also wish all the staff of these Houses of Parliament a happy Christmas, and let us hope that this coming year we look after them better than we did in the past year, which has been a very stressful time for them.
	I am sure the Leader of the House was as shocked as I was to hear Lord Patten’s remarks on the “Today” programme. Following the recent disturbing time for the BBC and its reputation, he described the Public Accounts Committee report as “unfair” and “shabby”. There is something seriously wrong in that. Our constituents have legitimate concerns about the running of the BBC. My own view is that this merits his resignation.

Andrew Lansley: On the first point, we in this House have a responsibility to look after the House staff, and I think we discharge it properly. Speaking as a recent addition to the membership of the House of Commons Commission, I know that it takes that responsibility immensely seriously, and ensures the staff who look after us are employed, and looked after, on the best and most favourable conditions.
	The PAC report into the BBC is a matter for the BBC Trust and the BBC itself, not for me or Ministers directly. Such reports are important, however. As I know as a former head of a Department, when the PAC issues reports and recommendations, they must be responded to and taken very seriously.

Peter Bone: May I wish the Leader of the House a happy Christmas—and, as it is Christmas, thank the Whips for looking after us, because that has not been said yet? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Bill on the redefinition of marriage will have its Second Reading on 28 January, and that there is no truth in the outrageous suggestion that Whips are slipping Members who do not want to support that measure and calling people back from overseas trips who want to support it?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I cannot confirm the timing of business beyond what I have announced to the House, and it is not my place to comment on the characteristics of any whipping operation. However, we have made it clear, as I believe all parties have, that votes on the equal civil marriage Bill will be free votes.

Kate Green: May we have a debate about accurate reporting of the autumn statement? The Conservative party website currently states:
	“Anyone in work and receiving benefits will gain more from paying less tax, than what they lose from benefits not increasing in real terms.”
	I thought about asking for a debate on declining standards of grammar. As analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that lone parents and working couples with children will be net losers from the changes in the autumn statement, may we have a debate in order to get the right figures on the record?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will recall that she will have an opportunity to debate this with my colleagues on Second Reading of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, on the House’s second day back. I point out to her that benefits are intended to be limited—an increase limited to 1%—but this follows five years during which benefits rose by 20%, whereas average earnings rose by 10%. We cannot ignore the simple fact that those on the lowest incomes are among those who will obtain the greatest proportionate benefit from the increase in the personal tax allowance. In April, that will increase to £9,440, which will more than halve the income tax bill of someone working full-time on the minimum wage.

Tessa Munt: In 2011, the leadership of Somerset county council announced that Somerset would be the first county to introduce partial closure and charging for the use of recycling facilities. The public expressed their concern that that would lead to increased fly-tipping. The resulting costs, which are £303,615 this year, have to be picked up by the taxpayer through the district councils. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on how Ministers might be empowered to intervene to protect the environment and stop this irresponsible use of taxpayers’ money?

Andrew Lansley: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, and I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government to respond to her specifically. Where county councils and district authorities sit down to discuss these things together—I know they do that as they do it with us as Members of Parliament; we do it all together—we have a better basis on which to consider matters, rather than simply shifting costs between tiers of authorities.

Dave Watts: May I inform the Leader of the House that the insulation companies in my constituency, large and small alike, wrote to the Department of Energy and Climate Change four months ago expressing their concern about the Government’s green deal. I chased that up two months ago to get a response, but to date that Department has not responded to me or to the companies, which have legitimate concerns. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State on what he is going to do to sort out his dysfunctional Department?

Andrew Lansley: I will, of course, talk to my colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change about this, but I would hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the green deal. It is going to have a positive impact on up to 8 million homes over the next eight years and create up to 60,000 jobs in the insulation sector over the next three years. The further roll-out of the green deal is going to take place over the months and years ahead,
	but I hope that early in the new year we will have an opportunity for him and others to see how the green deal will be having a positive impact.

Therese Coffey: When I visited Kyson primary school in Woodbridge for a belated Parliament week question and answer session with year 5 and year 6 students, I was struck by how often the issue of the Belfast riots came up among 10 and 11-year-olds. Given that these events are still continuing, with some disgraceful things occurring, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State to make another statement early in the new year?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows how our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has come to the House and, quite rightly, made statements. Of course, I have no doubt that in the new year, if need be, she will do so again. We all condemn the lawlessness and thuggery we have seen. It is not in defence of the flag; it is a disgrace to the flag, frankly, and to Britain that this is happening. We want to see it stop. In particular, the threat to our elected representatives and the threat to and attacks on the police are attacks on democracy. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is working with the Executive to ensure that local solutions, led in Northern Ireland, are leading the approach. We all support that, as we respect the devolution settlement, but I know that as a House we are very concerned and that the Government will take seriously their responsibility to report to us.

David Winnick: In view of all the good wishes that have been expressed today—I join others in expressing them—is the Leader of the House aware that one of the best wishes we could have for 2013 would be for a statement early in the year that this wretched Government will resign?

Andrew Lansley: And a happy Christmas to the hon. Gentleman, too.

Andrew Rosindell: I know that my right hon. Friend will agree that we should commend Her Majesty’s Government for everything that has been done this year to make the diamond jubilee anniversary such a magnificent celebration for our whole nation. Will he arrange for the Government to make an early statement in 2013 about preparations for a possible blue sapphire jubilee to celebrate Her Majesty the Queen’s 65th anniversary in 2017?

Andrew Lansley: At this precise moment, I will simply join my hon. Friend and the whole House in remarking on what a wonderful diamond jubilee year it has been and on how the example of Her Majesty over 60 years as our sovereign has taken the monarchy to the highest levels of respect, admiration and, indeed, affection that this country has ever seen.

Jim Shannon: The Government initiated a 10-year diabetes strategy for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2003, but there has been a 30% increase in the number of people with diabetes in my constituency and
	a 20% increase across the whole United Kingdom. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or a debate on this vital issue?

Andrew Lansley: I know the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in finding opportunities, and there will no doubt be early opportunities for a debate on diabetes care. His point is important, as we need not only to improve the quality of care so that best practice is achieved—the Public Accounts Committee identified in its report the quality of life and the number of lives saved that could be gained by implementing best practice in diabetes care, and although we are doing that we have more to do—but to use measures such as the health check system in the NHS and the preventive health strategies that are now being developed between the NHS and local authorities to reduce the rising prevalence of diabetes.

Anne McIntosh: I extend my best wishes to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House. I pay particular thanks to colleagues on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and especially to the staff, who have enabled us to achieve all that we have this year. It looks as though there is very little chance of a white Christmas this year, but there will be flooding in many parts of the country. Many people have already been displaced. Will my right hon. Friend look favourably on my request for an early debate in the new year on flooding and on what more we, local authorities and other agencies can do between floods, as well as on the question of insurance to replace the statement of principles that expires at the end of May?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, she has rightly raised an issue that will concern many of us in many constituencies across the country. We feel deeply for those in the west country and elsewhere who are at risk at Christmas of flooding, with all the horrible consequences that flow from that. The House will be aware that the Environment Agency, local authorities, fire and rescue services and others have been forewarned by the Flood Forecasting Centre and stand ready to deal with any emergencies. I know that Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will actively monitor that and will intervene and report to the House whenever necessary.
	Flood insurance is a priority. Discussions with the Association of British Insurers are continuing. I cannot comment on the detail of that negotiation, but we are continuing to seek a new approach that is better than the statement of principles—one that genuinely secures affordable flood insurance without placing unsustainable costs on other policyholders or the taxpayer.

Tom Harris: Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating IPSA—[Hon. Members: “No.”] Sarcasm alert—not only on concocting a generous tax avoidance scheme for its acting chief executive, Paula Higson, but on trying to protect our staff from those unwanted and pesky tax bills? That is the excuse it gives for insisting that staff expenses are paid into our accounts, not their own. The last time MPs accepted other people’s money into our bank accounts, it did not end well. Can the Leader of the House sort it out?

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will draw what the hon. Gentleman has said to the attention of the chairman of IPSA so that IPSA can respond to him. I know that the Speaker’s Committee on IPSA takes very seriously the views of Members on the administration of IPSA’s responsibilities, so I am sure we will have occasion to discuss the matter there.

Neil Carmichael: Would the Lord Privy Seal be willing to investigate the behaviour of Cosalt plc, which has big problems with minority shareholding? We need answers to some legitimate questions, and 28 Members of Parliament are concerned about the matter.

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise to investigate in detail myself, but I can undertake to be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. The issue clearly relates to corporate governance so I will ask him to look into it and respond to my hon. Friend.

Ian Murray: May I add my thanks and best wishes to all the staff of the House, including all the staff of the Speaker’s Office?
	Some 3,900 people in my constituency claim in-work benefits but will be worse off next year as a result of the autumn statement. May we have an urgent debate next year on the fairness of hitting the people who do the right thing while millionaires get a massive tax cut?

Andrew Lansley: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the exchange that I had with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). One must take into account the fact that people are in work and are receiving in-work benefits. Those benefits will not necessarily rise by inflation but by 1%. The pay of many people in work is not rising or is rising by a very small amount indeed, but one must also take into account that in recognition of that and because we want those who are in work to feel that work really pays and that the more hours they work, the more benefit they get, this Government are reducing the tax on the lowest paid. The personal tax allowance is going up to £9,440. That will make a significant difference to the tax bill of lower paid workers.

Tobias Ellwood: From his visits to my constituency, my right hon. Friend will be aware what a wonderful tourism destination Bournemouth is. Tourism is the biggest industry in Bournemouth. May we have a debate or a statement on proposals allowing a change of use of hotels, whereby they would be converted into flats, without the approval of the town hall? I hope my right hon. Friend would agree that such a policy would be devastating for tourism destinations such as Bournemouth.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right about the attractions of Bournemouth. I can remember being in Bournemouth on a number of occasions and having the benefit of the sun on our face and a beautiful bay in front of us to enjoy while we were there. The simple fact of the large number of hotel bedrooms in Bournemouth makes an enormous difference to its attractiveness to conferences, for example. I will talk to my ministerial colleagues and ask them to respond to my hon. Friend about the
	change of use regulations. Equally, in order to support economic growth, we should create as flexible a structure as we can for people who own property to allow them to develop that property and exploit it.

Andy Sawford: Is the Leader of the House aware that over the past few weeks people in Corby and east Northamptonshire have been peeping out of their windows in amazement at festive lights illuminating their roads, because they were plunged into darkness for a long time as a result of a decision by the Tory-controlled county council? That is just one reason why some of his hon. Friends were stumbling around in my constituency having lost their way. This matters so much for the safety and well-being of people across Corby and east Northamptonshire, so may we please have a debate on street lights?

Andrew Lansley: I must confess that I was not aware of the street light situation in Corby—[Hon. Members: “Why not?”] Street lights are a matter for individual local authorities. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is discovering, if a Member wishes to raise that sort of constituency matter, applying for an Adjournment debate is a good tactic.

Andrew Jones: Youth unemployment in Harrogate and Knaresborough currently stands at 2.6%, having halved in the past year, and we have obviously seen some good progress nationally. Please may we have a debate on the growth of apprenticeships and the role they are playing in cutting youth unemployment?

Andrew Lansley: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Since the general election more than 1 million people have started an apprenticeship and the budget has been increased to £1.5 billion. In addition, I know that he will share my optimism about the development of the Youth Contract, especially the 250,000 extra work experience places or sector-based work academy places, the wage incentive to support 18 to 24-year-olds getting into work and the extra incentives for young apprentices in particular. That is all contributing, I hope. For example, the most recent data show that the unemployment rate for 16 to 24-year-olds is down 1.3 points this quarter.

Bill Esterson: Yesterday the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said that local councils had record levels of reserves that they should use to plug the hole left by his record levels of cuts. May we have a debate on how the Government could make better use of their own reserves and get their own house in order before lecturing others on how to run their affairs?

Andrew Lansley: I am slightly at a loss to discover what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, especially given the circumstances in which the Labour Government, whom he supported, left this country and the unprecedentedly large debts they left this country. That is the situation we are dealing with. We are not dealing with a Government who came into office and found that they had reserves; we are dealing with a Government who found that they were borrowing £1 in every £4 they were spending.

Glyn Davies: During the past few days the Beacon of Hope, a hospice that has premises in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), has gone into voluntary receivership. Although hospices are a devolved issue, we know that charities, including hospices, are under huge pressure right across the UK, and it is especially poignant for hospices. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an opportunity, whether by statement or debate, so that we can discuss the financial arrangements under which hospices operate?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter and share his concern, and that of his constituents, about the financial situation the local hospice is in. As he says, it is a devolved matter, but I will of course talk with my hon. Friend about it. We might not be able to offer an immediate opportunity for debate, but I hope that we can discuss the hospice movement at an early date. From my point of view, I have listened on the issues relating to regulation and know that we do not have to impose additional regulation on the hospice movement. At the same time, in England the Government are supporting the hospice movement by conducting pilot projects for per-patient funding, which would make an enormous difference for hospices, and indeed those with life-limiting illnesses, because they would be able to choose the provider and location of their care and the resources the NHS and social services give to support them would be used directly to support the provider of their choice, including hospices.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on the new Governor of the Bank of England’s financial package? We learn from today’s newspapers that on top of his salary of three times that of the Prime Minister’s, he will have to manage on a London accommodation allowance of a mere £250,000 a year. In that debate, would it be possible to ascertain whether, if that is used for a mortgage, any capital gain made on the property would be repayable to the taxpayer?

Andrew Lansley: I do not know whether we have any immediate opportunity for such a debate. I recall that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came here and made a statement announcing that appointment, it was welcomed right across the House, including by the hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers. The truth of the matter, as the Chancellor clearly stated, is that if we want to get the very best person in the world for this job, we have to be prepared to put in place the contract to make that happen.

Oliver Colvile: There has been a great deal of speculation in the press that the Government are going to review the inflation target that they set for the Bank of England. Indeed, the Bank of England has failed for some while now to hit that target. May we kindly have a debate or a statement on the criteria that the Treasury will use to work out the inflation target that the Bank of England should be trying to hit?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend knows, I hope, that we have no plans to change the inflation targeting framework that was set out in the Bank of England Act 1998. As he
	rightly says, for a significant period that target was not being met, but the framework makes that transparent because it requires the Governor of the Bank of England to write to the Chancellor to explain why it has not happened. Inflation has substantially reduced in the past year or so. Alongside the fiscal credibility of the Government, that gives international markets and businesses confidence in the credibility of our monetary policy too.

Kelvin Hopkins: Season’s greetings to everyone. In particular, I want to wish British industry a happy new year, but I fear that it might not be so. Britain has a visible trade deficit with the rest of the European Union of, typically, £1 billion a week. Britain’s manufacturing sector is half the size of Germany’s as a proportion of GDP. Britain’s industry has been damaged time and again over many decades by an over-valuation of our currency, and over the past 18 months or so we have seen a substantial weakening of the euro, which is again forcing up the value of sterling, with the result that our trade deficit will be even more difficult to overcome. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on exchange rate policy and its implications for British industry?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is describing a situation that relates to the decline in British manufacturing that occurred dramatically over the life of the previous Labour Government. I entirely absolve him of responsibility for some of that Government’s policies, which he did not necessarily support, although he supported that Government. We are very clear that we must achieve for the future a rebalancing of our economy. That is why British manufacturing has substantially improved its trade in and exports of goods to some of the new and emerging markets such as China, India, Russia and Brazil. It is not a matter of losing markets in Europe; we have to win them as well. In 2011, we exported £300 billion in goods, up 12.5% on the year before, and we need to sustain that progress.

Philip Hollobone: The Leader of the House will know that group B streptococcus is the most common cause of life-threatening infection in newborn babies, and that each year, very sadly, some 100 newborn babies suffer either death or disability as a result. In countries that have routine screening, infection rates are falling, yet in this country infection rates have risen by a quarter in the past 10 years. The UK National Screening Committee has just announced, after a review, that it will not be introducing routine screening. May we have an oral statement from a Health Minister on the Floor of the House so that Members can question this very distressing decision?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend and I, and, indeed, other Members, have discussed this subject. He is right that it is the responsibility of the National Screening Committee, independently, to offer advice about the relative effectiveness of national screening programmes. I will, of course, ask my colleagues at the Department of Health to respond directly to my hon. Friend, but he might like to note that there may be a further opportunity to raise this important issue at Health questions on Tuesday 15 January.

John Glen: Last week, Mr Levesconte, the landlord of the Royal Oak pub in Shrewton, left the country with £29,000 that had been saved in the local thrift fund by 60 families. This week, due to the generosity of the people of Shrewton, south Wiltshire and beyond, the full sum has been acquired through donations. Will the Leader of the House comment on the vibrancy of the big society in south Wiltshire and make a statement on the safety of investing and saving in banks, building societies and credit unions, as opposed to thrift funds?

Mr Speaker: I think that what the hon. Gentleman wants is not so much a comment but, in conformity with House procedures, a full statement.

John Glen: I did ask for that in the second part of my question.

Mr Speaker: Ah! I neglected to follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic right through. We are all deeply indebted to him.

Andrew Lansley: I cannot offer a statement at this time, but I can say that I share my hon. Friend’s concern that people recognise the intrinsic merits of saving in institutions, not least guaranteed institutions such as banks, building societies and credit unions. On a positive note, those in Wiltshire are, as my hon. Friend has said, clearly a generous community who care for each other. That is a central part of not only the big society, but the kind of society that we all want to live in. I was equally touched by the way in which so many people have responded, in like fashion, after the wickedness of thefts from Great Ormond Street hospital by recognising that they want to contribute to look after others.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Leader of the House and colleagues, and wish him and all hon. and right hon. Members a merry Christmas.

Thalidomide Trust (Grant)

Norman Lamb: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to report to the House on a new 10-year grant to the Thalidomide Trust to help it find more personalised ways of meeting the health needs of thalidomide survivors.
	The current three-year grant, which comes to an end in March 2013, was introduced by the previous Government as a pilot scheme. Its aim was to enable the Thalidomide Trust and its members to explore more innovative ways of preventing further deterioration in the health of thalidomide victims and to help preserve their independence.
	This Government are committed to improving outcomes for all disabled people and to supporting them to live independent lives. That is why we are pleased to be able to continue the excellent work begun by the pilot scheme through this 10-year commitment. Over the next 10 years, the grant will be in the region of £80 million. It will be paid on an annual basis, rising each year in line with inflation.
	I was privileged to speak on this very subject on my first day as a Health Minister and then met, along with the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), the Thalidomide Trust and its national advisory council. They impressed on me the complex and highly specialised needs that thalidomiders have, particularly as they approach older age. At the meeting, members of the trust and a number of thalidomiders stressed the need for certainty and that any future grant would need to be for longer than just three years. I am delighted that we are able to give them that certainty.
	Many thalidomiders have had to use their bodies to compensate for the damage to their arms or legs in such a way as to cause severe musculoskeletal problems, including lower back pain, sciatica, damage to the coccyx area and shoulder pain and stiffness. Treatments to relieve those symptoms, such as massage and physiotherapy, not only help to maintain their independence, but often mean that they can stay in work.
	The Thalidomide Trust has provided evaluation reports for the first two years of the pilot scheme. I have read with interest how its has invested the money. It is clear from the reports that this scheme is the best way to continue to meet the complex needs of thalidomide survivors. One recipient of the grant has improved her independence by installing a table that rises and falls by remote control, enabling her to reduce overstrain on her muscles. Another recipient describes how regular physiotherapy and visits to the gym, paid for by the grant, have led to him losing weight, thereby relieving stress on his joints, reducing the pain and improving his mental well-being.
	A small number of people said that they had reduced their need for prescription painkillers and the frequency with which they need to see their GP. The reasons for that varied, and included successful surgery, lifestyle changes and improved access to complementary medicines, but all of them were linked to the use of the grant. The continued funding will help individual thalidomiders to maintain control over their own health needs, because they are the experts in what really makes a difference.
	There will be clear principles for the use of the money. It must be used only for health-related needs and it cannot be used to duplicate support provided through a different source, such as personal health budgets. The grant must also be used only for the benefit of thalidomide survivors living in England. Separately, the devolved Administrations will each consider how they will support thalidomiders after the end of the current three-year pilot, which is in March next year.
	Naturally, the Department of Health will review the scheme annually to ensure that it remains the most appropriate use of funding and the best way of distributing it to those who need it. The trust will use its extensive expertise and knowledge of its members to distribute the funds to thalidomide survivors in England.
	I pay tribute to the Thalidomide Trust. The contribution of both the trust and its national advisory council, many members of which are in the Public Gallery to hear this statement, cannot be overstated. The trust uses its expert knowledge to provide invaluable support to survivors of the thalidomide disaster and their families, while members of the national advisory council work tirelessly, despite their own impairments, in the cause of all thalidomiders.
	Finally, I reiterate the regret and deep sympathy first expressed three years ago by the then Minister of State, Department of Health, the former Member for North Warwickshire, Mike O’Brien. We acknowledge the physical hardship and emotional difficulties faced by the children affected by this drug and their families, and the challenges that many continue to endure, often on a daily basis.
	I commend the statement to the House and wish everyone, including all thalidomiders, a very happy Christmas.

Liz Kendall: I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement.
	Thalidomide survivors waited far too long for Governments over many years to address the appalling physical and emotional difficulties that they faced as a result of thalidomide prescribed by the NHS from 1958 to 1961. The last Government took the first steps towards addressing this unacceptable situation. In January 2010, the then Minister of State rightly offered our sincere regret and deep sympathy for the injury and suffering endured by all those whose expectant mothers took the thalidomide drug. I want to repeat that sincere regret and sympathy today.
	The previous Government also acknowledged the urgent need for extra help for thalidomide survivors to meet their care and support needs, by putting in place a three-year pilot scheme. The pilot, as this Minister said, has helped survivors to improve the quality of their lives and to cope with their increasing loss of mobility and independence as they get older by helping them to buy and put in place the things that they say make the most difference to their lives.
	I welcome the Minister’s announcement that the Government will continue the scheme for 10 more years with a grant in the region of £80 million. That will mean a huge amount to the 431 thalidomide survivors living in the UK today. As the Thalidomide Trust says, the money will allow one survivor with no arms to buy the special adaptations she has been unable to afford, and a
	man with no legs to make a down payment on a van adapted so that he can drive it from his wheelchair. It will allow a deaf thalidomide survivor to continue to employ someone to be her signer when she goes out so that she can retain her confidence and ability to remain active and mobile.
	I have a number of questions about the scheme that I hope the Minister will answer. He will be aware that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland made proportionate contributions to the fund set up by the previous Government. Will the devolved Administrations make similar contributions to the fund he has announced today? He says that the grant will be reviewed annually, but there might be concern that that is not as stable as some survivors would like. Will the Minister guarantee that the views, needs and concerns of survivors will be at the heart of those reviews, and will he explain why we need an annual review, and not a three-year review as under the previous Government?
	Will the reviews look specifically at the increasing needs of thalidomide survivors as they get older? Evidence collected over the past two years confirms that their health and mobility is deteriorating rapidly now that they have reached their 50s. Because of those increasing needs, will the Minister commit today to ensuring that there will be no less funding in the years ahead?
	I will conclude, as the Minister did, by thanking and paying tribute to the work of the Thalidomide Trust, its national advisory council, and all campaigners who have fought to make successive Governments face up to their responsibilities. Members across the House sincerely regret how badly thalidomide survivors were let down, and we will strive to ensure that that never happens again.

Norman Lamb: I appreciate the shadow Minister’s support for today’s announcement and she is right to say that people have waited far too long for an acknowledgment of the tragedy and for practical action. I acknowledge—as I did in my statement—the actions of the previous Government in initiating the pilot scheme, and the expression of regret made by the former Health Minister. One powerful thing about the scheme, as designed in the original pilot, is that it gives maximum power to the individual to determine and respond to their priorities and needs. That means that the money can be used in a host of different ways, as the hon. Lady described.
	The hon. Lady raised a fair point about the devolved Administrations, and we must be equally concerned about thalidomiders in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations did not feel able to commit to the 10-year period here and now, but they are fully committed to continuing that help and we will work closely with them to ensure that individuals in those Administrations are not left behind in any way.
	The hon. Lady rightly mentioned the annual review, which is a question of proper accountability. The trust has done a brilliant job and I acknowledge its work. It is a completely responsible organisation that knows better than anyone how best to deploy the available resources, but as it acknowledges, it is right for it to be held to account for how public money is spent. There is no intention at all to question the purpose of the grant, and we want to give the certainty provided by the 10-year period. The fund will be index linked so that the
	value of money from the pilot scheme is maintained throughout that period. The review is simply to ensure that the scheme still makes sense and that we are using the available resource in the best possible way. I have every confidence that that will be the case and, as the hon. Lady requested, the needs of the thalidomiders who benefit from the money will be put at the heart of the reviews. We will not let those people down in the commitment that we are making today, and the funding will be maintained.
	The hon. Lady rightly talked about deteriorating health because the body has been under such extraordinary strain. I spoke to thalidomiders earlier today. It is remarkable what their bodies have been able to do, often in the absence of limbs, but that puts an enormous strain them, and the wear and tear is now having its effect. We do not know what the prognosis is going forward. It is therefore right to take stock and see what their needs are after a 10-year period, but the commitment to those people must remain.

Andrew Jones: On 23 November, the first ever memorial to thalidomide victims was unveiled in Harrogate—a tree was planted and a plaque was unveiled to mark the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of the drug. Thalidomide victims were present at the unveiling, which was carried out by Mr Guy Tweedy, a Harrogate resident and leading thalidomide campaigner.
	The victims have waited a very long time for recognition, including financial recognition. I very much welcome the Minister’s comments, particularly those on the certainty required and the 10-year period, the challenges the victims face as they grow older and the sheer bravery that some have had to show during the course of their lives. I simply urge him to do all he can to support this special group.

Norman Lamb: I absolutely commit, on behalf of the Government, to do everything we can to support that group of people. As a society, we owe it to them to support them—they are often in very difficult circumstances. He is right to note the bravery that they have shown—not just the individuals, but their families too—in facing those circumstances.

Frank Field: I pay tribute to victims of the drug and to the trust that so admirably serves them, and thank the Minister for his statement, but how did he fix on that sum? Was it the sum that the trust asked for? Does it meet all the trust’s demands, or are other forces at work?

Norman Lamb: The right hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the work of the trust over many years. We have based the sum on the amount of money provided as part of the pilot scheme, which appeared to work very well. It does not meet all needs, but many individuals get help in other ways—some have personal budgets, and so on. However, it is acknowledged that the amount is a massive help and support and gives them the reassurance for a lengthy period that continuing support will be available.

Richard Fuller: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in praising the dedicated, intelligent and sensitive leadership of the Thalidomide Trust over many years. The news from the Minister will be welcomed by thalidomide survivors throughout the UK, including in my constituency by a friend of mine and his wonderful family. The issue for many thalidomide survivors is the pursuit of an independent everyday life. Will the Minister advise me and the House why the decision was made to have a 10-year grant rather than a lifetime grant, which would have eliminated all uncertainty? I am very interested in the Minister’s comments on that.

Norman Lamb: We had a genuine judgment to make. On the one hand, I wanted to provide a good deal of certainty for a lengthy period, but this is a unique group of people. Their health is deteriorating, but we do not yet know what the prognosis is for the rest of their lives. It therefore might have been dangerous to allocate a sum of money for the rest of their lives. For all we know, their needs may grow considerably. It is therefore right to take stock in 10 years’ time and make a judgment on their needs at that stage.

Jim Cunningham: I have met victims of thalidomide over many years, and I had the privilege of being Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Member for North Warwickshire when he introduced the pilot scheme, so I really understand some of the difficulties that the Minister has faced. I therefore congratulate him, as I know that it was a difficult and emotional decision to take. The trust should also be congratulated on its efforts and tenacity over many years.

Norman Lamb: As I indicated in my statement, I had to respond to an Adjournment debate on the subject in Westminster Hall on my very first full day in the job. The presence of so many thalidomiders at that debate sent a very powerful message to me about the need for us to face up to our responsibility to support those individuals.

Mel Stride: I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, which will mean a huge amount to sufferers up and down the country, including those in my constituency. I wish to pay tribute to Ruth Daniels, one of my constituents, who has campaigned very hard on this issue.
	The Minister mentioned that money would be made available for physical health needs. Can he confirm that it will also be made available for those suffering from mental effects as a result of thalidomide?

Norman Lamb: Ruth Daniels and many others have campaigned long and hard for justice, and it has taken too long for that to be properly acknowledged. I absolutely confirm that the money can be used for any health-related matter, and mental health can be affected as well as physical health, and is just as legitimate as any other health need.

Thomas Docherty: The Minister will be aware that the trust has also called for the manufacturer finally to acknowledge its culpability,
	something that it has repeatedly failed to do. Will he update the House on his assessment of the likelihood of getting those cowards finally to take responsibility?

Norman Lamb: Talking earlier to people from the Thalidomide Trust, they are deeply frustrated—as am I—by the failure of the manufacturer to face up to its responsibilities. I cannot provide a positive update that suggests that it is about to do what it should do, but I think we would all agree that it should acknowledge its culpability without delay.

Cathy Jamieson: I thank the Minister for responding so positively—it was my Westminster Hall debate to which he responded on his first day in the job. I am glad that he has listened to the views of the thalidomiders. I also join in the tribute to the Thalidomide Trust, especially Mikey Argy and Liz Buckle, who first brought the information to me that persuaded me that a debate was needed.
	The Minister mentioned the position in the devolved Administrations. Will he give the House an update on the discussions that he has had with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing in Scotland? Has he had any indication of when a statement or announcement will be made by the Scottish Government so that thalidomide victims in Scotland can have the same peace of mind as those in England?

Norman Lamb: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her campaigning on this issue, along with several other hon. Members, which has played a part in ensuring that the needs of thalidomiders are properly acknowledged. I cannot tell her that there will be a statement at any particular time, but I confirm that we are in touch with the Scottish Government and there is a desire to help. I will write to her to provide as much of an update as I can.

Point of Order

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that I will be a little unseasonal in my point of order, but it is in response to the Government.
	Last night, at around 5 o’clock, an amendment was tabled to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill in the other place with the purpose of abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board in England and Wales. The results of a consultation, which were only put on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website yesterday evening, show that the majority of people oppose the abolition of the AWB, and it is also against the express wishes of the Welsh Government, who have said that they do not want it abolished. The abolition would affect thousands of agricultural workers and, on the Government’s own figures, would take more than £240 million out of the rural economy. Have you had any request from Ministers to make a statement to Members in this House?

Mr Speaker: I have received no such request. I am sorry if the otherwise jovial spirits of the hon. Gentleman in the approach to Christmas have been undermined or disturbed, but from the vantage point of the Chair nothing disorderly has occurred. I have a sense that this is a matter to which the House will return in due course. If there are no further points of order, we will move on.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Secretary Duncan Smith, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Mr Oliver Letwin, Steve Webb, Michael Fallon and Sajid Javid, presented a Bill to make provision relating to the up-rating of certain social security benefits and tax credits.
	Bill read the First Time; to be read a Second time Monday 7 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 116) with explanatory notes (Bill 116-EN).

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Energy and Climate Change Committee Report

Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the publication of the Fifth Report from the Energy and Climate Change Committee, on Consumer Engagement with Energy Markets, HC 554-I, and the launch of inquiries into Energy prices, profits and poverty, and Smart meter roll-out.
	I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Backbench Business Committee for the chance to launch my Committee’s report on consumer engagement with energy markets, which was published today. My Committee has been paperless since the summer recess so my notes are on an iPad, rather than hard copy. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	This inquiry was prompted by our concerns that many consumers do not have a clear idea of how energy prices will be affected by investment in energy infrastructure—investment that is needed to provide a clean, secure and affordable energy supply for the future. Our report concludes that consumer engagement with the energy market is low and that this is linked to low levels of competition and consumer trust in the energy industry. Many consumers seemed unable or unwilling to take action to reduce their energy bills by switching provider. We are particularly concerned that some customers who have not engaged in switching may be among the more vulnerable, and that they are paying considerably more for their energy.
	There is little incentive for larger energy suppliers to offer those consumers a better deal. Confusion felt by consumers faced with too many different tariffs has been a barrier to switching. Other barriers include apathy, which I fear I may be guilty of myself as a non-switcher; fear of ending up with a worse deal; feeling that switching is too much hassle; disinterest in energy issues; distrust of suppliers; and feeling that all suppliers are the same.
	Ofgem plans to increase both switching and competition under its retail market review proposals by reducing and simplifying tariffs and making it easier for consumers to switch. The Prime Minister, during Prime Minister’s questions, recently pledged to ensure that
	“energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 316.]
	The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who is in his place,confirmed to us that the Department of Energy and Climate Change would be doing that in the Energy Bill. However, the Government’s proposals are very similar to those put forward by Ofgem. We question the wisdom of legislating to implement measures that are so similar to those Ofgem proposes to implement more quickly without legislation. Whether the Government’s and Ofgem’s measures on tariffs will improve the situation for consumers remains to be seen. It is crucial that, if they do not make improvements soon, stronger action is taken to ensure that consumers get a fair deal from
	energy providers. Our report concludes that the effect of the proposed reforms should be monitored and it proposes several indicators for tracking the effect on competition and on getting a better deal for consumers.
	As I outlined earlier, the rising cost of investing in our energy infrastructure and of paying for DECC’s environmental and social policies will be reflected in consumer bills over coming decades. Currently, there is some confusion about the impact of this investment on consumer bills, and it is important that there is more clarity, because consumers are being expected to take action to offset these costs and avoid large rises in their bills. A very good way of doing that is by increasing energy efficiency, but we are concerned that this message is not getting across to consumers and that plans for informing consumers about energy efficiency lack detail.
	Our inquiry heard from members of the public at events held in Southampton, East Bergholt, in my constituency, and Banchory. People told us that they did not know whom to trust for information about energy issues or where to go for advice. Given the importance of increasing consumer knowledge of these issues, we conclude that there is a case for streamlining the sources of information available to consumers to provide a single, independent, reliable and trustworthy source of information about these issues. Most of all, however, we need a full and frank conversation with the public about the contribution that consumers are being expected to make to ensuring that we have safe, secure and affordable energy supplies in the future. DECC should lead that conversation. Consumers need to be aware that bills may continue to rise unless they increase energy efficiency or otherwise reduce their energy consumption.
	During our inquiry, energy price rises were reported by all major suppliers, and prices look set to continue rising. We are concerned about the effect on consumers, particularly those in fuel poverty.

John Robertson: I thank the Chair of the Committee, of which I have the honour of being a member, and my colleagues for being so forward thinking as to visit Anniesland college in my constituency in February to talk to real people about real problems. Does my hon. Friend—I believe he is my friend in this case—agree that it is important not only that we reach out to people and talk to them, but that we talk to people who have real problems? The Minister might think of trying that for a change, rather than staying within the walls of this palace.

Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a valued colleague on my Committee, for that intervention. I am looking forward to my visit to Glasgow in February. It is truly said that there is more fun to be had at a funeral in the west of Scotland than at a wedding in the east of Scotland.
	My Committee is concerned about the effect on consumers, particularly those in fuel poverty. Price rises from energy companies this autumn mean that average annual energy bills have already risen by about 7%, and DECC’s own advisory group on fuel poverty has estimated that 300,000 more homes will be in fuel poverty by Christmas. Millions more may be affected unless radical action is taken. If consumers are to protect themselves against the rising cost of energy, they will need to act to
	reduce their bills. The success of the green deal and smart meter roll-out depends on public buy-in. Unfortunately, at present, public confidence is low.
	Our report found evidence of a lack of consumer trust in energy suppliers, which may in part derive from a lack of transparency in energy company profits and prices. Some consumers blame energy company profits for the rise in prices. A poll undertaken by my Committee showed that one in two people believed that energy company profits contributed most to the 75% increase in the average household dual fuel bill between 2004 and 2010.
	Greater transparency is needed in respect of energy company profits and energy prices, including across the whole portfolio of the vertically integrated companies. Our report makes recommendations for increasing transparency, but the issue warrants further investigation. Regaining confidence and trust will require both the Government and energy companies to demonstrate that consumers are getting a fair deal and, importantly, that vulnerable fuel-poor households are being reached and protected.

Caroline Flint: I welcome the report. Recommendation 13 refers to transparency in respect of profits and trading. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is worrying that when a previous report advised Ofgem of the need to look at the wholesale market and trading, and made a number of recommendations, Ofgem declined to take the opportunity to look into this area more closely? It is worrying that Ofgem does not see its role as looking at the source of the issue: where wholesale prices are made and when those trades are made.

Tim Yeo: It is true that Ofgem could have been a little more vigorous and robust in its response to the concerns raised about how profits are made in different parts of some of the vertically integrated businesses. This is a complex area, but more could be done to promote transparency without infringing the commercial rights that companies obviously want to protect for themselves.
	We want the Government and energy companies to demonstrate that consumers are getting a fair deal and that vulnerable, fuel-poor households are protected. With fuel poverty projected to hit 3.9 million households and pressure on low-income consumers from rising energy prices, along with tariffs that penalise those who are struggling, there is clearly still a long way to go. My Committee is therefore today launching a further inquiry to investigate energy prices, profits and poverty. The inquiry will aim to answer one question: are energy companies offering consumers a fair deal? We are interested in what factors determine prices and what contribution they make to a typical bill; the extent to which the Government or regulator should intervene, if at all, to influence prices; whether Ofgem is protecting consumers and, if not, how it could improve; and whether other measures could ensure that consumers are paying fair prices. On profits, we wish to examine whether the public’s perception that prices are rising because of company profits is fair; why there is so much uncertainty about how much profit companies are making; how information about profits is communicated and whether this could be improved; and how better transparency and trust could be developed in the energy industry.
	We will be looking at whether the Government are on track to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016; the findings of the Hills review and its impact on fuel poverty policy; the extent to which fuel poverty policies are reaching the right people and how this might change under the energy company obligation; measures for vulnerable consumers living in solid-wall and hard-to-treat properties; and the extent to which fuel-poor households engage in switching and energy efficiency schemes.

Therese Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for their excellent report. He will know that the all-party group on off-gas grid is in the middle of its inquiry, so I welcome this extra investigation. He has long been an advocate for households in his constituency and elsewhere. Will he ensure that the new inquiry includes a reference to off-gas grid households?

Tim Yeo: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that we will extend our inquiry to cover that point; we have published the terms of reference, but I am sure we can probably still manage to squeeze it in.

Gregory Barker: May I say on behalf of the coalition Government that we greatly welcome the report published today? There is a lot in it, and I will certainly be studying it in more detail over the Christmas period as I munch my cold turkey. The imperative of acting in the interests of consumers and being prepared to be radical is something the Government take to heart. That is why we are bringing forward the most radical, sweeping changes since privatisation to how consumer tariffs operate. We will take on board my hon. Friend’s recommendations, including those published today. We are absolutely aligned in the interests of ensuring that consumers get the best deal.
	May I also welcome my hon. Friend’s announcement today of a further inquiry? We all have an interest in ensuring that we do much better and raise the level of ambition in relation not only to communicating these messages but to understanding the underlying causes. It sounds as though the report will greatly help policy making.

Nigel Evans: Order. I have, exceptionally, allowed that lengthy intervention because I know that the Minister is not allowed to make his own speech, but please could any further interventions be shorter?

Tim Yeo: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the phrase “cold turkey” is not going to be associated with my Christmas at all? Nevertheless, I welcome the constructive engagement that my Committee has with him and his Department, on these issues in particular.
	The members of my Committee are all such gluttons for punishment and so well supported by our staff that we are, as I said, launching another inquiry today. Our consumer engagement report concluded that there was an urgent need to begin engaging consumers with the smart meter project, and that the concerns that have been raised about smart meters need to be addressed if roll-out is to be a success. Every home and small business
	in the country is due to have a smart meter installed by 2020. That roll-out will be paid for partly by consumers in their bills. Energy suppliers are expected to benefit from reduced operating and generation costs, and suppliers should pass on some of those savings to consumers through lower prices. In order to reap the benefits of smart metering, consumers will need to use the information about energy use provided by their in-home display to reduce their energy consumption and cut their energy bills.
	Our consumer engagement inquiry suggests that only about half of people have heard of smart meters and that not all of them support roll-out. Although the full roll-out is not due to begin until 2014, there is a risk that if engagement levels do not increase, consumers may be reluctant to allow smart meters to be installed in their homes. That could be an obstacle to the success of the programme and the potential for consumers to benefit from it.
	Our consumer engagement report also highlighted a lack of consumer trust in energy companies, but it is those very energy suppliers that will be delivering smart meter roll-out directly to consumers. The Government must not be complacent. They should spread the word to consumers as part of the honest conversation that my Committee has recommended. The Committee will monitor progress towards delivering the smart meter roll-out and we are today putting out a call for evidence. We are particularly concerned to explore: what criteria will be used to judge the success of the project and whether the cost and time scale predictions are realistic; whether smart meters will empower consumers to take greater control of their energy consumption; whether enough is being done to ensure that financial benefits accruing to suppliers will be passed on to consumers; how to achieve transparency on what consumers are paying towards the roll-out; and how to ensure that vulnerable customers, including consumers on pre-payment meters, reap the benefits.
	The consumer engagement report that we are publishing today has important messages for the energy industry, for the regulator, for consumers and for the Government. I commend the report to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Christmas Adjournment

David Amess: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.

Nigel Evans: Beautifully moved. Merry Christmas, Mr Amess. There will be a time limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches in the debate. My guidance to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) is that, although the clock will not be put on him, his time limit is 10 minutes.

HEALTH

Andrew Bingham: I want to raise the issue of ambulance stations in my High Peak constituency. First, for the sake of clarity, I should explain that the High Peak is a large constituency and as such is covered by two primary care trusts: Derbyshire in the south and Glossop and Tameside in the north. Consequently, the ambulance services are provided by the North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust and the East Midland Ambulance Service NHS Trust. I want to concentrate today on the East Midland Ambulance Service—EMAS—but if time allows, I will also briefly mention the North West Ambulance Service.
	“Being the Best” is an EMAS proposal to rationalise the ambulance services and ambulance stations across the whole of the east midlands. I am sure many Members across the east midlands will have their own issues in their own constituencies. I want to highlight the consequences for the residents of a large part of the High Peak of what I believe are badly thought out and ill advised proposals.
	EMAS is looking to create a hub-based model. A hub will be, as the word suggests, a large centre where ambulances will be based and where crews will go to collect their vehicles and return them at the end of the shift. The hubs will be supported by what EMAS calls “deployment units”. I have seen a photograph of a deployment unit and I venture to say that, if we in this Chamber saw one, many of us would say it looks remarkably like a portakabin. They look unattractive, which does not go down well in an attractive area such as the High Peak where the scenery is so well appreciated, and also seem to be of very little use. I can see the logic of a hub-and-spoke model, but the crucial decision within such a model is where the hubs are located. That is where I believe EMAS has got things so badly wrong for the High Peak.
	There are presently two ambulance stations in the EMAS area of the High Peak: one in Buxton and one in New Mills. Under the EMAS proposals, both of them will be removed, leaving the area without an ambulance station at all, relying instead on a hub that is placed not in or even around the High Peak, but in Chesterfield—at a distance of over 30 miles from New Mills, which is the
	furthest point. EMAS claims that the ambulances will not be parked there, but merely collected from and returned to the hub. That may be the case, but it creates further difficulties, as I shall explain.
	The High Peak gets its name for a very good reason—it is high and there are peaks. The road from Chesterfield into the High Peak reaches at some points almost 1,000 feet above sea level. It is exposed to the elements. Many areas around different parts of the north and the east midlands might see only a sprinkling of snow, but Tideswell Moor, as part of the road is called, can easily be closed: owing to its exposure, only a small amount of snow is required to drift across the road to make it impassable for many vehicles. I use that road every week to catch the train to London. I well remember one occasion when I returned from London, got off the train in Chesterfield and quickly realised that I could go no further. I had to stay overnight in a Chesterfield hotel. I had that option, but somebody in the High Peak who needs an ambulance to use that road does not.
	Let us imagine a crew collecting the ambulance to go on shift. They leave the hub, and within a short time a 999 call is received, requiring them to divert to, for the sake of argument, Clay Cross. The ambulance goes to the call, collects the patient and takes them to Chesterfield hospital—a process that could take some time. I have been out with the ambulance crews and I know how long these things can take. From Chesterfield hospital, the crew could get further diverted to, say, Alfreton or Matlock. That could mean the ambulance never reaching the High Peak, leaving my constituency with no ambulance cover at all.
	I realise that my case requires a working knowledge of the geography of north Derbyshire, but that further makes my point, as it is precisely that knowledge that was lacking or ignored when the plans were drawn up. In meetings with me, EMAS says that the model has been computer generated. I have to say that it may look good on paper, but it does not and will not work in reality. EMAS also says that “Being the Best” is about improving the service and improving staff welfare. I fail to see how it can even begin to satisfy either of those criteria. How can staff welfare be increased when many of them will face an extra 30-mile journey to work both before and after what could easily be a 12-hour shift?
	In addition, EMAS will be committed to compensating staff for excess travel for a certain period following the move. Extra fuel costs will be incurred by the to-ing and fro-ing from the Chesterfield hub—not to mention the cost to the environment with all the extra miles that the staff will have to travel. That means reducing staff welfare while increasing costs and reducing efficiency—to my mind, the direct opposite of what EMAS is trying to achieve.
	The knock-on effect will be that, through staff turnover, the High Peak will lose ambulance men and women with the crucial local road knowledge. High Peak residents wishing to become paramedics or to work on the ambulances will now apply to the North West Ambulance Service, whose operational centres are nearer. We will arrive at a situation whereby whatever ambulances we get in the High Peak will be staffed not by local people who know the local towns, villages and hamlets in the area, but by able and excellent staff—I concede that—who
	will be residents from miles away. They will not be able to find their way around—sat-navs do not work that well in the High Peak—and response times will increase even further.
	The fundamental problem is the way the process has been undertaken and how the proposals have been arrived at. The North West Ambulance Service is looking at similar proposals, but it appears to be engaging with others, inviting key stakeholders to help to discuss and shape its plans. At a meeting, it referred to the hub-and-spoke model but, I am told, acknowledged that that method of delivery will not suit all areas. I do not wish to prejudge what NWAS may propose, but there appears to be an acknowledgement that one size does not fit all. EMAS, however, presented its proposals with little or no apparent discussion with anyone, key stakeholder or not, preferring to use what appears to be an off-the-shelf template.
	As Members would expect, I am batting for my constituents. We deserve a better ambulance service. We have several large quarries and other industrial premises within the High Peak, and they can be dangerous places. Industrial accidents happen. Safety records in the High Peak are good, but there is still the risk of injury.
	Let me also dwell a moment on what happens in the summer months. The High Peak can be flooded with tourists. The population swells, and with it the potential risk and the need for an ambulance rise. Walkers, hikers and runners swarm across the High Peak hills like ants. Theatre-goers fill Buxton and the surrounding towns and villages during the Buxton festival. Coach-loads of people come to my constituency during the summer months. Who will go to them if they need emergency assistance?
	The first responders, who perform excellent work in the High Peak, have expressed opposition to these plans. I am a great supporter of Mountain Rescue. It does a fantastic job across the High Peak, and in some cases its specific services are needed to reach people in inaccessible areas. Even it has taken the unusual step of expressing grave concerns about these proposals. Derbyshire, Leicester and Rutland Air Ambulance is also a vital part of the emergency mix in the High Peak, but the main ambulance service is still the one that people call most often. These other organisations embrace their responsibilities, but I am concerned that these proposals are leading to EMAS abdicating theirs.
	The consultation has now closed. The whole High Peak community has united as one against these proposals. Two public meetings were attended by hundreds of local residents incensed by the proposals. At one meeting I attended, the chief executive said he was “listening very carefully” to local people. I hope he is. I hope that, when he presents his final recommendations to his board, they are not the same ones that are on the table today, as they are inadequate, unfeasible and unworkable: they reduce, not enhance, the service; they hamper, not improve, staff welfare; and they desert, not embrace, the people of the High Peak in their hour of need. The current proposals may improve some response times elsewhere, in the more populated areas of the east midlands, but they will not improve response times in the High Peak.

Jim Dowd: Traditionally, Members raise constituency concerns in the House’s pre-recess Adjournment debates, and I shall raise a subject that has provoked not anger, but fury, and a feeling of unfairness and injustice among my constituents such as I have not known in the 20 years that I have served as a Member of Parliament and the 20 years before that when I was a member of Lewisham borough council. That subject is the appointment in July of a trust special administrator to the South London Healthcare NHS Trust. The TSA was appointed under the unsustainable providers regime, a provision of the National Health Service Act 2006 and amended, I think, in 2009. South London Healthcare NHS Trust does not include Lewisham. It covers the adjoining area, and principally comprises the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich, the Queen Mary hospital in Sidcup and the Princess Royal university hospital in Farnborough.
	This is the first time the Department has used these provisions, so the step taken is ground-breaking, pioneering—

John McDonnell: And privatising.

Jim Dowd: Yes, I think that is part of the TSA’s agenda. The way the Department has engineered this situation is disgraceful, dishonourable, disreputable and downright dishonest—and if we have not had enough alliteration, I could add devious, as well as underhand and fraudulent.
	Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I am no great supporter of what the TSA has done. The Department is attempting to pervert the process because the major impact of what the administrator in the adjoining trust is doing is on Lewisham hospital. The draft report is a considerable document that has cost an awful lot of money and made an awful lot of money for a number of consultants, including McKinsey, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers—they always seem to do well out of these things. The public consultation on the draft report has closed and the Secretary of State is due to reach a decision. The final report from the TSA will be presented in early January and the Secretary of State will be making a decision in February. I appeal today for the Secretary of State to suspend the entire process, because it has been perverted in the way that I have outlined.
	I do not hold the TSA personally responsible. I have met him on a few occasions and find him to be a reasonable and rational person. However, I know that the devastating impact of his report is on Lewisham hospital—the impact there is beyond anything that will happen at Queen Mary’s, the Princess Royal or the Queen Elizabeth. The report will result in the closure of the accident and emergency department, and all medical and surgical emergency care, all maternity services, all children’s services and all critical care will cease on the Lewisham hospital site.
	I had an Adjournment debate on this subject a couple of weeks ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East
	(Heidi Alexander) both raised the issue in the Opposition-day debate on health just last week. If I were to raise this matter every day in this House, I could not adequately reflect the burning resentment and anger that it has caused in the community in Lewisham, as the injustice is so severe. The Department could not appoint a special administrator to look at Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust, because it is a solvent, well-managed trust meeting all its performance and financial targets. What the Department has done is appoint an administrator next door and then, under the bogus and completely facile assumption that everything connects with everything else, focused on Lewisham hospital. That is what is completely devious about this.
	At the public meetings the TSA has held on the matter, he has shown a little film setting out what he is trying to do. It included him quoting this age-old homily, “If your domestic finances are in mess, clearly you have to do something about it.” I do not dispute that the finances of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust are in a mess. At the meeting in Sydenham one of my constituents said to him, “If your domestic finances are in a mess, you may well have to do something about it, but that does not include breaking into next door’s house and nicking all their stuff.” That is precisely what is happening under this system. This procedure is being used for the first time. If it is used in that way, the Department will set a template for the rest of the country. It will then, in theory, be able to appoint a TSA anywhere and his or her remit will be such that they can look anywhere; they will not just focus on the area or trust they have been established to look into.
	The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State repeatedly parrot four tests for reorganisations and reconfigurations. The first is that they should have general practitioner and clinical commissioning group support. The second is that they should have public engagement. That is a strange use of the vague term “public engagement”; they do not specify “public support”. The third is that the proposals have to be clinically sound. The fourth is that they have to increase patient choice. None of those factors exists in the recommendations for Lewisham hospital, and the TSA does not even maintain that they do. He openly admits that the proposals will reduce patient choice sharply. The clinicians, the hospital board, the CCG, and various groups of GPs across Lewisham and beyond all say that the recommendations are a threat to the standard of care that the people of Lewisham can expect and all are opposed to the TSA’s proposals. I say to the Secretary of State, via the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), that he should abandon the scheme now, as the way it has been undertaken is clearly flawed, and he should protect the services that my constituents and people across south-east London have a right to expect.

Therese Coffey: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on a particularly important topic, in which the Minister shares an interest, as we are neighbours. First, I wish to thank our front-line staff in the ambulance service, our paramedics, who work very hard. I also thank our volunteers, the community first responders, who do a great job and genuinely participate in helping to save lives in our communities.
	That is particularly important in the shires, as reaching someone in just a few minutes to provide life-saving treatment is crucial. I thank those people who give up their time.
	A reorganisation is taking place in the east of England ambulance service, and I know that that is a concern to staff, who feel that patients will not get the treatment that they deserve. Change is always unsettling, but I genuinely believe that the management are trying to do this for the best reasons. One of the things we need to keep ensuring is that patient safety is the key priority.
	The east of England ambulance service is hitting its targets—it has a regional target. Given that our region is so vast, it is no surprise that by focusing on certain cities it is relatively straightforward to hit targets. However, when we break down the performance by county, we start to see a very different story. I know that my colleagues from Suffolk and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) have long been campaigning on that issue to try to raise it up the agenda, and it is vital that we do so. The presence of a new interim chief executive may start to help us to tackle that. We need to work hard to keep the chair and the board of the ambulance service on their toes, so that they recognise that saying that they have hit a regional target does not mean that the issue will go away—it will not.
	One of the things I call on the board to do is think carefully about its responses to Members of Parliament when we are asking for greater transparency on performance. Belatedly—I am pleased that it has done this—there is an agreement that it will start to publish county by county performance details on a monthly basis. I believe that the board should and can go further. We already know that it provides performance data by postcode to the primary care trusts, and I believe those data should be published—they should certainly be available. Instead of getting into freedom of information exchanges, we need to ensure that, in line with what Sir David Nicholson told the Public Accounts Committee, every Member of Parliament should be able to get access to the data they need easily in order to monitor what is happening for their constituents and not be caught in a bureaucratic nightmare. As we all know, sunlight often brings a change in performance. Somebody trying to get to a village such as Shingle Street finds that it takes 10 minutes to get there just from the main road. When I say “main road” I am referring to a single track road. I recognise that not everybody will be able to do that, but it is still important that we try to get the postcode data published.
	Earlier this year, after a successful meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), a Health Minister at the time, I was under the impression that there would be a contract with the county performance targets built into it. Indeed, that was important for the paying of bonuses. Disappointingly, the contract that was agreed with the ambulance service by the person agreeing it on behalf of the primary care trusts in the east of England contained an added caveat about hospital handover times. We know that that is an issue, but another thing that Members of Parliament are doing is putting the spotlight on where there are those problems as well. Ultimately, we want the best ambulance service
	for our patients. We should not have to put up with sub-standard performance simply because the county is rural.
	One disappointing thing about the contract, from which we expected so much, was that there seemed to be a lot of wriggle room. The new interim chief executive knows that well, as he negotiated the contract on behalf of the primary care trusts. He knows the issues our ambulance services face and I shall press him to ensure that the contracts this time make it clear what percentage of people in Suffolk should expect to see an ambulance within the regulated time.
	Another thing that went wrong was the complaints process, although I am delighted that the chair of the ambulance trust has fixed that. I pay tribute to her and her staff for sorting that out. All these problems together have led me to voice my opposition—I will continue to do so—to the trust’s being allowed to have foundation status before a quality service is delivered consistently across the region. Simply placing ambulances close to Cambridge, Ipswich, Norwich, Luton and so on—near the big conurbations—is not fair on our rural areas. I point those people who say, “Well, it is a rural area,” to the example of the north-west. Cumbria has very similar characteristics as a pretty rural area with some big towns, yet the service there manages consistently to hit its targets.
	Is there light at the end of the tunnel? I hope so. It is clear that MPs from Suffolk and across the east of England will not let up on the issue and I hope that we will have a step change in performance when we meet again in February.
	Health care is very important to the people of Suffolk, but I also want to take this opportunity to thank my staff for all the hard work they have done in the last year. They have been extraordinary in helping my constituents tackle all sorts of issues and have also been very helpful this week, as we have sent out a mailshot of nearly 4,000 letters on Sizewell C—another issue that I share with my hon. Friend the Minister—and the impact that could have in the future. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you a happy Christmas.

John Healey: I wish to take the unusual step of telling the House and the Minister about the individual case of little Vinny Duggan to highlight a wider problem that the Government can solve by making legal changes so that other patients and other parents such as Andy and Andrea Duggan do not have to go through what this family has gone through in the past two and a half years. As Andrea has said to me, this is their fight, but it is also a fight for other people in their position.
	I have been involved with the parents in the quest for information for only 10 months, whereas Mr and Mrs Duggan have been battling since Vinny was born nearly two and half years ago. At times, Vinny has fought for life. He is now a little lad who is full of life. I was with the family on Saturday, and he was smiling, laughing, climbing on the sofa and climbing on me, but he has a very serious congenital heart and lung condition. He has brain damage, likely to have been caused by a
	lackof oxygen, and he is unlikely ever to be able to speak. His parents have told me that they are very proud of Vinny and very grateful that they still have him here.
	It has been touch and go at times. He was born on 20 August 2010 at Doncaster royal infirmary. He was full term and was a healthy 7 lb 9 oz. However, within the first day his mum, in particular, became concerned that he was very blue, that he was not feeding properly and that he was very sleepy. The following day, he was diagnosed with a heart murmur and the day after that he was discharged against the parents’ wishes, as they were concerned and wanted tests done before he was discharged. He was at home for two days and after that time, when he had not properly woken up or properly fed and had stopped wetting his nappies, they phoned the hospital and were advised to take him to the children’s observational unit, where they arrived at 7 o’clock that evening.
	Within the first hour, they were assessed by a triage nurse as non-urgent—green, in other words—and had to wait almost another five hours before a doctor saw them. During that night, Vinny was put on a heart monitor and given the tests he needed. He had a very high heart rate and was transferred rapidly to the specialist unit at Leeds general infirmary. He was diagnosed as having a very serious life-threatening heart and lung condition. He was given open heart and major lung surgery and spent five months in Leeds hospital, six weeks of that in intensive care and 10 weeks in the high-dependency unit.
	The internal investigation at Doncaster hospital afterwards concluded that there were “no real concerns” about the standard of care in Vinny’s case, despite the fact that there were many chances to notice that he was unwell, to do the tests that could have been required and to listen to Mr and Mrs Duggan’s concerns. There remain important discrepancies between the evidence of the parents and that of some of the staff and the hospital in the investigation. It took two years and a new chief executive before, six weeks ago, Mr and Mrs Duggan received a welcome letter from the new acting chief executive, Mike Pinkerton, who ended by saying:
	“The care that Vinny received fell below the standard you have a right to expect from us and I do sincerely apologise.”
	Like so many other parents, Mr and Mrs Duggan had principally wanted an explanation—not retribution or compensation. However, like many parents, they were driven down the route of trying to get answers through the courts, and that is what they are having to do. They also rightly turned to the professional body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is responsible for regulating Britain’s 670,000 nurses and midwives. Mrs Duggan submitted a complaint in September 2011, which was turned down in January 2012. She challenged it, which caused the council to look again at the argument that there was no case to answer, and the internal review concluded that the case should be referred back to the investigating committee for reconsideration.
	The Nursing and Midwifery Council, however, has limited powers to review its decisions and that has been reinforced and restricted further by a High Court judgment in May in the case of R(B) v. NMC 2012. In other words, the NMC does not have the legal powers it needs
	to review its own decisions. The chief executive, Jackie Smith, was good enough to meet me in the summer and to agree to commission independent legal advice on Vinny’s case and on the NMC’s restrictions. That independent legal advice came from Mark Shaw QC, who concluded:
	“The Order and Rules makes it plain that the NMC has no statutory power to review, re-open or reverse a disciplinary decision (in particular, a decision of the Investigating Committee that a registrant has no case to answer) beyond the specific circumstances stipulated in rule 7, namely: receipt of a fresh allegation within three years of the dismissal of a previous allegation against the same registrant.”
	He went on to point out:
	“Typically, other professional regulators have wider review powers, granted explicitly by secondary legislation.”
	Those other professional bodies include the General Medical Council, which is responsible for regulating Britain’s 250,000 registered doctors. The GMC’s powers were rightly extended in 2004, so it has the power to review and re-open a complaint, to take a view that its earlier decisions might be flawed, to take new evidence into account and to act. It is considering a review of the complaint lodged with it about a doctor involved in this case and we expect a decision imminently.
	The General Optical Council and the General Pharmaceutical Council have similar powers; the General Dental Council does not. At a time when complaints from patients are rising and pressures on staff are increasing, if we are to maintain trust and confidence in our health professionals and the NHS, we must have a better and more open system of complaints and we must have regulators with the powers to do the job they are set up to do: safeguard professional standards and safeguard patients and the public, too.
	I know the Law Commission is reviewing the common enabling legislative framework for all health regulators. That could take three years, so I want the Minister to confirm today that he knows that there is a problem and that in the meantime, in advance of the Law Commission’s report, he will act to change the operating rules and orders so that those professional bodies can do the job. Otherwise, many other patients and parents will face the same fight for the truth—

Nigel Evans: Order.

Jeremy Lefroy: In September 2012 the Royal College of Physicians published a report, “Hospitals on the edge? The time for action”, which sets out starkly the challenges facing our acute hospitals. It begins:
	“All hospital inpatients deserve to receive safe, high-quality, sustainable care centred around their needs and delivered in an appropriate setting by respectful, compassionate, expert health professionals. Yet it is increasingly clear that our hospitals are struggling to cope with the challenge of an ageing population and increasing hospital admissions.”
	It highlights the consequences of failing to meet the challenges and refers to the history of my own trust. When the public inquiry reports next month, we will have the opportunity to consider its implications for the NHS. Today I wish to concentrate on the Monitor
	review of my trust in the light of the continuing rise in pressure on acute services that the Royal College of Physicians highlights.
	There are three common themes that I hear in the NHS these days. The first is that we need to do much more in the community and at home and much less in acute hospitals, and that we must therefore close acute hospital beds and use the money in the community. Although I agree with the premise, I dispute the conclusion. Community care is essential, but it must work before it results in a reduction in admissions and lengths of stay. The fact that admissions are rising and, according to the RCP, the fall in length of stay has flatlined in the past three years, even rising for patients over 85, indicates to me that the shift to the community either is not happening fast enough or indeed will not happen as expected.
	The conclusion also seems to ignore demography. In the area served by the Mid Staffordshire Trust, the population is expected to rise by some 10% in the coming 23 years. The number of people over 60 will rise by nearly half, and the number of those 75 and older—those most likely to need acute services—will double. I suspect that is the situation in many parts of the country.
	Increasing admissions, rising and ageing population, flatlining length of stays—all of these indicate an increased demand for acute services in the coming 20 years, yet the talk is, and has been for many years, of further reductions in acute beds. It makes little sense to do that until community services and other medical advances mean that those beds are proved to be no longer necessary. In Stafford, there is a shortage of step-down beds, so rather than closing acute beds altogether why not keep them as community beds on the same site, leaving the door open for increasing acute services in the future, if and when the need arises?
	The second theme is that we need to integrate primary and secondary care more closely. I agree, yet actions sometimes have the opposite effect. The previous Government took away the responsibility for providing 24/7 primary care cover from GPs. I regret that, as it detracts from integration. It may also be responsible for placing a greater burden on accident and emergency departments at night. If out-of-hours care is not to be the responsibility of GPs, let it be centred, where geographically possible, on acute and community hospitals. This makes better use of NHS premises and, by being adjacent to A and E or other emergency units, can help take the pressure off them while providing the hospital with extra income. That would certainly work at Stafford and Cannock.
	Tariffs can produce strange results. The University Hospital of North Staffordshire has a block contract for A and E admissions. For any admission in excess of that, it receives only 30% of the tariff, so what is it supposed to do—reject emergency admissions on the basis that they will be loss-making? Of course not. I would propose that emergency departments are funded at what it costs to provide that service safely. In Stafford, the emergency department has a deficit of some £2 million per year based on throughput and tariff. The number of patients attending—more than 50,000—could not possibly be safely accommodated elsewhere. Surrounding hospitals
	are already at capacity, so it makes little sense to impose a national tariff, which inevitably results in a loss and which in turn puts pressure on the hospital to prove that it is sustainable.
	The third theme is that medicine is becoming increasingly specialised, so most work will inevitably migrate to large specialist units. There is truth in this belief, but there is also danger. There are 61 approved medical specialties in the UK, compared with 30 in Norway. As the RCP says, this has
	“rendered the provision of continuity of care increasingly difficult.”
	For older people, who often have complex and multiple needs, this can result in poorly co-ordinated care. This has not been helped by the introduction of shift-based systems under the new deal and the European working time directive, to replace the teams that took responsibility for individual patients. Specialisation also means that there is a much smaller pool of staff from which to select for each post.
	If we were to design from scratch a hospital where those who will need it most— the elderly, as the statistics show—will receive safe and caring care for their complex needs as close to home and loved ones as possible, integrated into primary and community care, we would end up with something pretty much like the district general hospitals and community hospitals up and down the country, such as Stafford and Cannock.
	This is not an argument for no change. I believe there must be much closer working between the larger and smaller trusts, for instance, and much more sharing of common services than at present. But it is a warning that national tariffs are not impartial arbiters. They generally work, I believe, against acute care.

Jim Dowd: I am following what the hon. Gentleman is saying most carefully, as this is part of the problem that we experience in Lewisham. Does he feel, as I do, that instead of reflecting the needs of the population across the country and providing services that correspond with that, the Department of Health is trying to implement a template or a framework of its own making and inflict it on the nation?

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not convinced that that is the case at all. I believe Ministers are listening and are considering matters very carefully, but there is a danger, of course, that a template will be inflicted. The hon. Gentleman and I both earnestly trust that that will not be the case.
	As I said, I believe that national tariffs are not impartial arbiters. They generally work against acute care, and there is a risk that the constant pressure which they are placing on acute care, particularly in district general hospitals, will make much of the sector unsustainable, yet without it, we do not have an NHS.
	Finally, I wish to raise a specific point about Monitor’s review of Mid Staffordshire. Clearly, the population served by the trust is a very important consideration. The trust’s 2011-12 report said that it was around 276,000, yet I have heard reports that the Monitor team considers it to be as low as 220,000 and therefore potentially too small to sustain certain services. The facts that I have clearly support the trust’s figure, not the one that I have heard rumoured.
	I have spoken much today about figures, because they are an important part of the Monitor review, but more important is the quality of services, for which Monitor also has a legal responsibility. Early next year, the Secretary of State will bring to the House the report of Robert Francis QC from his public inquiry into Mid Staffordshire. Julie Bailey and the Cure the NHS group, who from their own experiences brought to light the harm that was done, have set out radical and clear ideas for turning the NHS the right way up, with the patient at the top, not the bottom—right first time with zero harm to each and every patient. That is something which caring, hard-working staff in our NHS in Stafford and Cannock—where waiting times and mortality rates are improving, although there is much to be done—and right across the country went into the NHS to provide.
	The NHS, as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said, and the nursing and medical professions must make it clear that there is no place for anyone for whom quality patient care does not come above all else. The regulations must show that.
	The Monitor review is an opportunity for Stafford and Cannock hospitals to become a model of how to provide sustainable high quality emergency, acute and community care to a mid-sized population. If Monitor succeeds in achieving this there and elsewhere, as the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) mentioned, it will have done the nation a great service, and I am sure the Minister will be remembered as someone who played a major part in improving our NHS. I urge Monitor to rise to the challenge.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making this debate possible before the Christmas recess. I shall raise an important issue, access to advanced therapeutic radiotherapy. I have raised this previously and I make no apology for doing so again. I intend to keep raising it until my constituents and those all across the country have proper access to advanced and innovative therapeutic radiotherapy systems.
	I remind the House that prior to the Conservative party conference the Prime Minister pledged that from April next year cancer patients who need innovative radiotherapy will get it. That pledge was confirmed to the House by the Secretary of State for Health on 23 October and by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has responsibility for cancer services, in written replies on 30 October.
	The Department of Health’s press release on 8 October expanded on the Prime Minister’s statement, indicating that a new £15 million cancer radiotherapy innovation fund was being created, drawn from the underspend of the cancer drugs fund. I bring to the House’s attention the fact that the £200 million cancer drugs fund has been under-spent by an average of £150 million each year since it was established. That was reported to the House on 16 April 2012—column 134WinHansard.
	The Health Minister confirmed on 30 October that the pledge meant three specific things: patients would have access to appropriate radiotherapy wherever they
	lived; the new national Commissioning Board would be responsible for funding; and intensity-modulated radiation therapy, known as IMRT, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, know as SABR, and stereotactic radiosurgery would be included.
	Since the Prime Minister’s pledge, the Department of Health has contacted all cancer centres to inform them that the cancer radiotherapy innovation fund is a revenue fund only and that its use is to be focused on getting as many centres up to the standard of delivering 24% access to IMRT by April next year. In a letter to all cancer centre chief executives on 17 October, the cancer tsar, Sir Mike Richards, stated that only four of the 50 centres were reaching the 24% requirement set by the national radiotherapy implementation group.
	In a letter to all radiotherapy service managers on 25 October, the national cancer action team stated that the cancer radiotherapy innovation fund was to be used effectively so that the Prime Minister’s pledge could be honoured and that if they are not delivering IMRT at the required 24% they were to submit an action plan by the end of November indicating how they would achieve that.
	The letter also stated that the radiotherapy service managers could access initial funding of up to £150,000 to help them reach the target. However, the Health Minister, when questioned about funding for the pledge on 30 October, told the House that there would be no extra or ongoing funding similar to the cancer drug fund for commissioners to draw on and that any capital funding requirements would have to be met from the current £300 million bulk purchase fund announced earlier this year. In other words, there was no extra money. It seems to me that the pledge cannot be met, in terms of both revenue and capital.
	Over the past two years adequate revenue funding has never been available to local commissioners to fund all the radiotherapy patients who have needed it. I know that full well from cases in my constituency. There is no indication that the new national Commissioning Board is to receive any additional funding. Without extra money, how will it fund care for the new 8,000 to 10,000 cancer patients the Prime Minister claims his pledge will help?
	I would like to consider capital for a moment. I received an e-mail last night from the charity Breast Cancer Campaign, which indicated that, given the current age profile of the linear accelerators in England, an additional 147 new LINACs will be needed by 2016, at an average cost of £1.5 million. I want to ask the Minister how those will be funded. There are simply not enough advanced radiotherapy systems in the NHS to deliver the pledge. The Department of Health has admitted that only four of the 50 cancer centres are able to deliver IMRT to the required standard. At full capacity they could treat between 1,200 and 1,500 patients a year.
	There are only four systems in the NHS delivering SABR up to the required standard, as the Minister has confirmed in written answers, and I have been to see one of the machines in St Bartholomew’s. At full capacity they could treat 1,000 patients a year. There is only one Gamma Knife in the NHS delivering stereotactic radiosurgery—in Sheffield—and at full capacity it could treat around 300 patients a year. With no extra capital available to fund new machines, it will be impossible for
	patients in most of England, including my region, to be treated by the NHS. There are some machines in the private sector, but the treatment is very expensive.
	I am asking not for more money for cancer care, but for a more equal distribution of resources. The Department of Health is telling commissioners that radiotherapy, in conjunction with surgery, is very effective, curing 70% of all cancers. I have come here neither to lambast the Minister, nor to condemn him with faint praise; I have come bearing gifts, as it is Christmas, in the form of a potential solution. If the total underspend from the cancer drugs fund was transferred to radiotherapy in each of England’s regions, the systems could be upgraded with the most advanced radiotherapy equipment by 2015, which would enable constituents in my region and across the country to access life-saving therapies and allow the Prime Minister to fulfil his pledge.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). I share the concerns of all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far about the importance of our national health service and our concerns about its current state. I think that the Minister—I have said this to him privately—is one of the most effective of the junior Ministers who have appeared at the Dispatch Box since the reshuffle. Because he is a doctor, I hope that he will take the concerns that I raise today on diabetes extremely seriously.
	I suffer from type 2 diabetes—I declare my interest—having discovered it only five years ago after a routine test. I thought I had it under control, because I was taking my medication and doing a little exercise every day, walking from Norman Shaw North to the Palace of Westminster, until I read the national diabetes audit report published on 10 December. It states that people with diabetes are 48% more likely to suffer a heart attack, 65% more likely to have heart failure, 144% more likely to need kidney dialysis, 210% more likely to have leg amputations, 331% more likely to have part of a foot removed and 25% more likely to suffer a stroke. Overall, those with diabetes are, on average, 40% more likely to die each year than those without it. Members will understand my concern, as we approach Christmas, after reading statistics of that kind.
	I know that other hon. Members have subsequently discovered that they, too, have diabetes. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), who is in the Chamber, discovered he had it only after being tested here in Parliament by the Silver Star charity. He went to see his GP and then knew that he had been diagnosed.
	We are facing a diabetes epidemic, and I ask the Government to take more note of what is happening as far as diabetes is concerned. Generally, people with diabetes look fairly normal—I do not know whether you think I look normal, Mr Deputy Speaker—and do not make a virtue of telling people we have diabetes, except in debates of this kind. That normality lulls us into a false sense of security. We need a national campaign on diabetes in the same way as for other illnesses. Because people are getting treatment and are able to go and get their Metformin or other medication on a regular basis, they feel that everything is going to be all right.
	This issue will not only not go away but will get worse. At the moment, 3.7 million people have diabetes, and that figure will rise by another 700,000 in a few years. Some 80% of amputations are preventable with proper care and management. I say to Ministers that this is something we can help the population with now. If we do so, we can save the 10% of the budget that is currently spent on diabetes care and the £1 million an hour that is spent on medication and care in our hospitals. These issues are very much in our hands.
	I welcome the new Minister with responsibility for diabetes, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has made an excellent start. The first thing she did was to hold a summit for those with an interest in diabetes. It included Diabetes UK, which does some fantastic work on the subject, Silver Star, a charity of which I am privileged to be the patron, and others, including clinicians. She said what very few Ministers have said in my career in this House—“I want you to tell me what I should do about this subject”—and she was given a lot of good advice and ideas about how to take these matters further.
	One thing that we could do immediately is to send out the message to GPs, even in the current climate of ongoing changes within the NHS, that it takes only a minute to offer each patient who comes to see them a diabetes test. I know that we are having screening for those of a certain age and disposition, but people go to see GPs for all kinds of reasons. Campaigning organisations such as Silver Star and Diabetes UK are able to go out to communities and conduct these tests. Indeed, anyone can conduct them. I have my kit with me, and although I am obviously not medically qualified, I can still conduct the test on people and am happy to do so. It is very easy to do. We should say to GPs, “Don’t wait for the screening process—begin now by testing anyone who comes to your surgery.”
	We need to send out through the Department of Health a message about what we eat. You have changed physically, Mr Deputy Speaker, in all the years I have known you. I know of your great interest in rugby. You used to be a very beefy character when you were first elected to this House, but you have slimmed down, perhaps since you have been an occupant of the Chair. If people look after their lifestyles better by taking exercise and being careful about what they eat, that could help them. Every time anyone drinks a glass of Coke, eight teaspoons of sugar go straight into their system. When I went over to Atlanta and met the chief executive of Coca-Cola, I asked him what he was doing about it, and he said that Coke Zero is the answer, but it is only part of the answer. The kids in our schools are offered drinks in vending machines which have a huge amount of sugar, and then they get addicted to it for the rest of their lives. This is about things that we can do ourselves and things that parents can do to bring down the bill for the NHS.
	When I finish this speech, and after I have listened to the Minister, I will be going to the Tea Room. When we get to the very helpful people there, we find that we have chocolates and mince pies on offer to us. If we turn to the left, we see a lot of food that is totally unfit for diabetics. Of course, I continue to eat this food because we do not have a choice, but it would be possible,
	through labelling of the drinks and food that we consume, as for people with a nut allergy, to add the words “Suitable for diabetics” or “Unsuitable for diabetics”.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend is making an absolutely excellent speech. Does he think that we should take the bull by the horns and legislate to reduce the amount of sugar in all food products? If we look at any kind of food, we often find totally unnecessary sugar in it as well as in all the soft drinks that he mentions.

Keith Vaz: Yes, I do. However, I remember that one time I met my hon. Friend when he was off to have dinner with his sons and was taking them to McDonald’s.

Jeremy Corbyn: No, that is not true. I wish to place on the record that my right hon. Friend has been deeply misled on this matter. I have not taken my sons to McDonald’s, I have no intention of taking them to McDonald’s, and I have no intention of visiting McDonald’s myself. Is that clear?

Keith Vaz: I will not tease my hon. Friend, but I think that the word “McDonald’s” did enter the conversation somewhere. However, I accept that his response is now on the record.
	I would support legislation aimed at ensuring that we are very careful about the amount of sugar, and salt, in our diet. Indeed, I have introduced a ten-minute rule Bill that says exactly that. Denmark started a “fat tax” but then decided that it was unworkable because the food industry lobbied so heavily against it, and so the tax was removed. I am not saying that the Government are going to legislate on this; I do not think they will. The food industry is one of the most powerful in this country. The sugary drinks industry, from Red Bull, a can of which contains more than eight teaspoons of sugar, right down to the people who make Coke and all these other drinks, will fight very hard on this. In the meantime, let us send out a message and work together to stop this epidemic consuming and subsuming our country.

Nigel Evans: For the wind-ups, the guideline on speeches is 10 minutes, but the clock will not be in operation.

Daniel Poulter: I have very much enjoyed sitting through this debate on health. I remember that when we had the equivalent debate last year, many speakers did not have the time they wanted to make their speeches. The fact that we have had longer today has enabled many right hon. and hon. Members to make valuable contributions on a number of subjects, focusing not only on health care issues in their constituencies and on important individual cases that highlight the need for changes in the system, but on the big challenges that face the NHS in tackling long-term medical conditions.
	In the time available to me, I will do my best to answer the questions and points put across by Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member
	for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and I have met on a number of occasions, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), to talk through the challenges facing Mid Staffordshire trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has been a great advocate for, and a great support to, the patients and staff at that trust. I would like to put on record my thanks to him for all that he has done for all his constituents. His advocacy during his time in this House has been tremendous.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford raised some important issues. We know that it is desirable, not only because it makes good health care economics but, more importantly, because it is good patient care, to keep people well and looked after in their own communities and in their own homes. My hon. Friend threw up a legitimate challenge when he said that if we are to deliver good care in the community and in people’s homes, we need to find a way of moving from the current situation. At the moment we have a crisis management response by default, where people are rushed into A and E, and he is right to highlight the fact that some parts of the country do not have an adequate GP out-of-hours system to look after people around the clock. We need to ask how we go from a system set up around crisis management to one that is better placed to meet the future needs of preventive care and looking after people with long-term conditions such as diabetes, dementia and heart disease in their own homes and communities. The Government are taking steps to address this issue by making sure that GPs and local health care commissioners, through clinical commissioning groups at a local level, will hold a lot of the health care budget. That will ensure that the focus is on primary preventive care and on better looking after people with long-term conditions.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that we need sufficient numbers of hospital beds, but as time passes there might less need for beds in some hospitals if local CCGs effectively meet the challenge of ensuring that that they invest in community and preventive care. In the interim, we need to support good commissioning of beds locally. We must have intermediate care beds available at community hospitals and in other care settings in the community for step-up care, step-down care and respite care.
	On the other side of the River Thames, the clinical director of St Thomas’ hospital, Ian Abbs, is looking into year-of-care tariffs, which look after patients with long-term conditions such as diabetes and heart disease in a holistic way that enables them to be supported when they need a hospital bed and need to be looked after in the community. That has to be the right way forward. We in the Department’s ministerial team will work with clinicians, medical directors, trusts and commissioning boards to make sure that Eurocare tariffs are in place, so that we can shift the focus away from the community, but in a managed way that means that hospital beds will still be available as people require them.
	The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) has been a strong advocate—he has raised his concerns many times—for constituents and others throughout his part of the country who are patients who need access to cancer care, cancer services, the cancer drugs fund and, indeed, high-quality radiotherapy. It is worth
	setting out some of the background—he outlined it himself in his speech—to the Government’s commitment to improving care for patients with cancer.
	In 2011 the Government made a commitment to expand radiotherapy capacity by investing more than £150 million more over four years from 2011. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that was to increase the utilisation of existing equipment, support additional services and ensure that all high-priority patients with a need for proton beam therapy get access to it. In April 2012, the then Secretary of State announced that the Department had set aside up to £250 million of public capital, to be invested by the NHS in building proton beam therapy facilities at the Christie hospital in Manchester and the University college London hospital, to treat up to 1,500 patients each year. In October we announced a £15 million radiotherapy innovation fund for 2012-13, which brings this Government’s additional investment in radiotherapy over the spending review period to more than £165 million. The fund is designed to ensure that, from April 2013, radiotherapy centres will be ready to deliver intensity-modulated radiotherapy to all patients who need it.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, in spite of that increased investment, there are ongoing concerns about the variability of access to radiotherapy services in the NHS. I hope that it will reassure him that, in response to the requests of radiotherapy centres to the fund, we will go beyond the original commitment and will this week notify the centres of allocations totalling almost £23 million. We have taken on board the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and are making sure that we continue to invest in high-quality radiation in the years ahead. I know that he will hold the Government to that task in the coming years.
	The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) has rightly raised issues of principle arising from the Vinny Duggan case. I want to put on record my best wishes to the family concerned. I will deal with two issues: first, the issue that arose from the way in which the trust handled the complaints procedure, and secondly, the wider point about the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
	First, as the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted, the trust clearly failed to acknowledge to any adequate degree that mistakes happened and that the quality of care was not of the standard that it should have been. That much was clear in this regrettable episode in the trust’s history. Two years is an unacceptable amount of time to wait for an apology or for an adequate explanation for what went wrong. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that what patients want when things go wrong is a sincere apology and an explanation as to why things happened. We all know, no matter how good the care is in the NHS, that bad things will sometimes happen, but we need to know that that mistake has been recognised, that there has been an apology and that lessons have been learned for the future. We cannot rewrite history or always unpick mistakes, but we can learn lessons for the future and make sure that such bad things do not happen again. That is what good medicine is about. Clearly, in this case there were problems with the way in which the complaints were addressed.
	Secondly, on the wider point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the NMC and the disparity between how different professional regulators approach the complaints process, he is right that the NMC can review or reopen a case only when new evidence is available. If old evidence is reconsidered or if it changes, as in this case, it is very difficult to review it. There are differences between the medical and other professional regulators with regard to how such cases are handled, and the Law Commission has rightly highlighted those inconsistencies. There needs to be more consistency throughout all parts of the medical, nursing and allied health professional groups, in order to make sure that patients know that, when complaints are made and concerns are aired, they will be looked into and, where necessary, complaints can be reopened and reinvestigated.
	The Law Commission proposals are expected to be introduced to the House in 2014. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we could do anything sooner than that, but, as he will know, if we brought in a section 60 order, it would take about two years for it to get through the full parliamentary process. Given that the Law Commission proposals are holistic and apply to not just the NMC, but all health professions, we believe that the right approach is to consider those proposals in 2014. We hope that that will bring a lot more consistency, which I think we all feel is desirable, to future cases involving the professional conduct of all medical, nursing and other health care professionals.
	I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for her kind comments about the work that I, other Suffolk MPs and, indeed, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), have done in relation to problems with the East of England ambulance service. People in more rural counties, particularly North Norfolk and parts of Suffolk, appear to be getting a service that is not of the standard that we would expect. We need more transparency with regard to response times, not just on a regional level, but on a county-wide level. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal asked whether there could be a breakdown by postcode. That is a little more challenging, because it is possible that, in any given month or response period, not enough people in a particular postcode will need an ambulance. There is a desire, however, for more transparency with regard to sub-geographical regions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has also taken a keen interest in the issue and has recently been out with the ambulance service on a number of evenings.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)for raising the issue and to my hon. Friend the Minister for responding. Having been out with the ambulance service, I have two observations. First, does the Minister agree that we have tremendous, dedicated staff and that we owe it to them to work with the management and others to get the service right? Secondly, the problems facing the service are diverse and multiple, but they can be solved with a lot of effort. For example, on the particular problem of blocking at hospitals and handing over to them, James Paget hospital in Galston has shown that, when the hospital and ambulance service work together, the problem can be solved.

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I pay tribute to him for taking the time to go out with the ambulance service and see first hand the problems that have been experienced in some parts of Suffolk and Norfolk. There have been problems with the handover time at some hospitals in the east of England and that is clearly unacceptable, because if the ambulance and hospital staff are engaged in lengthy handovers, it means that other patients are not being treated and seen in a timely manner. Those issues need to be addressed by some trusts in the east of England.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has written to the ambulance service and his letter was made available to my noble Friend Earl Howe. In it, he highlighted the trust’s decision to publish more performance information online from February and stated that it was important that that was done by geographical area to ensure that there is greater transparency in the quality of response data in areas such as Beccles and Bungay, relative to more urban areas such as Ipswich. That is an important point. I urge him and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal to continue pushing for transparency in the ambulance service’s data, and to continue their fight for improved response times for more rural areas of Suffolk and Norfolk. I know that my noble Friend Earl Howe would be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss the matter further.
	Let me turn to the issues that were raised by the other three Members. I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I take your hint. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) raised concerns about a number of ambulance stations, including one in Buxton. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who lives in a nearby constituency, shares those concerns. A review is currently taking place. We all welcome reviews if they are going to improve the quality of care for patients and improve ambulance response times. However, there are local concerns that the review must take into account issues such as rurality and the difficulties that patients on high land or in harder-to-access areas have in accessing all types of health care services.
	I note the concerns that the review is making proposals that do not necessarily take account of those factors. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak has put those concerns on the record today. If that has happened, I echo his concerns, because it is important, in the review of any service, that issues such as rurality and difficult-to-access areas are taken fully into account. This is, of course, a local health care decision. If he wants to discuss the matter further with Ministers, we are happy to discuss it with him.
	The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) put across his strong advocacy for Lewisham hospital. I trained in south Thames and have colleagues who work at Lewisham hospital. We all know that Lewisham faces particular challenges. It has demographic challenges, given its difficult population groups with considerable health care needs, and great health care
	inequalities. It has a large migrant population, which brings particular health care challenges and means that people do not always have English as a first language. Such people need to be looked after properly. It is important that those issues are taken into account during the discussions.
	I take on board the concerns of local staff that they are being drawn into the big financial concerns with South London Healthcare NHS Trust. However, we also have to recognise that no one hospital operates in a vacuum. We must ensure that hospital services and the care that is provided reflect the needs of the wider geographical area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be looking into these issues.

Jim Dowd: Will the Minister give way?

Daniel Poulter: I will take an intervention very quickly, but I am pressing on Mr Deputy Speaker’s patience.

Jim Dowd: Nobody disputes the Minister’s last point. That is why there is a reconfiguration process especially for that purpose. That is what should be used, rather than this back-door method.

Nigel Evans: Order. Please complete your contribution within 60 seconds, Minister, so that we can move on.

Daniel Poulter: I will do so, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take those considerations into account when he receives the report and comes to his conclusions in due course. I know that the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge will continue to make his views clear.
	Finally and importantly, I turn to the good remarks made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). He is right to point out that one of the big challenges facing this country in health care terms is to better look after people with long-term conditions. Diabetes is a key challenge. Patients with diabetes have a higher risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, amputation, vascular disease and a number of other medical problems. One key way to deal with that is to focus more on prevention, rather than cure. That means investing in more GP-led care and primary prevention, rather than picking up the pieces in hospital. We should focus on helping people with type 1 diabetes to have a normal life by educating them to understand their condition, through the use of insulin pumps and by helping younger people to manage their condition.
	The Government are committed to preventing diabetes and bad lifestyle habits from developing in the first place by focusing on better education in childhood. When local authorities have control of public health budgets, that will be a key priority for them. We must set good lifestyle habits from the early years to ensure that people do not develop diabetes later on.
	Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Transport

Phil Wilson: I want to take this opportunity to raise an issue that is helping to fill my postbag at the moment: the state of rural bus services in County Durham and Darlington. I know that that is a concern for many MPs, especially those in County Durham. Only yesterday, I received a petition from Aycliffe village signed by 300 people, which complains about the state of rural bus services in the area and the lack of buses, especially in the evening.
	Sedgefield covers part of south Durham and all the rural parts of Darlington borough. It covers about 150 square miles and, for people without a car, travelling from A to B can be a big problem. Car ownership in County Durham is below the national average. Almost 30% of households are without a car, compared with about 25% nationally. For those on low wages, the elderly, young people and disabled people, getting around the constituency can be a chore. The Government’s approach to cutting bus subsidies and their more general cuts to local government are making the situation worse.
	I could spend the rest of my speech talking about the severity of the Government’s cuts, but the Government would just say that the problem is the way in which the local authority is introducing the cuts. We could go on in that vein, but it would not resolve anything. When a constituent comes to my office—as constituents do from time to time—and says that he cannot get to work because the buses have changed, he wants a solution. He does not want to hear what will happen in the future or an argument about who is to blame; he wants me to tell him how he can get to work in the morning. I want to say a little about what some of my local communities are doing to provide community transport, because what people are looking for—the elderly and the low-paid—is a solution to the problems.
	People in communities such as Hurworth, Middleton St George, Sadberge and Brafferton in the Darlington part of my constituency are working with the Community Transport Association and Darlington borough council to assemble a workable community transport service for the area to help people who are suffering because of the lack of an adequate bus service. I hope that the Minister can offer his support and encouragement to the stakeholders of that scheme to ensure that it is a success.
	Durham county council already runs a community transport service called Link2, which provides a community service in areas where commercial bus services do not want to go. I congratulate the county council on providing that service. It has seen its budget for bus services reduced by about £1.3 million. The rural bus subsidy grant for the county has been cut by about 40%. Companies such as Arriva are therefore not receiving the subsidy that they received in the past, so they are pulling buses off routes, which is making it difficult for my constituents to get around. I have constituents who are having difficulties in getting to work, whose journeys have been lengthened and who cannot take up jobs that they want because they are unable to get to the place of work. Does the Minister agree that although cuts to bus
	subsidies might make savings in some areas, they create costs elsewhere? Will he say whose responsibility it is when vulnerable people fall through the transport net because of the cuts?
	To give an example, I have an elderly constituent who does not want to be named, but who wants me to relay her story because she believes that what is happening to her is also happening to others. My constituent is a 75-year-old pensioner who looks after her 50-year-old daughter who has Down’s syndrome and serious medical conditions. They often rely on friends and family to get to a doctor’s appointment, but one day family and friends were not available, there were no taxis, and buses no longer ran a convenient distance from their home. The doctor’s surgery was about a mile away so my constituent decided to walk there with her daughter. Such a journey might take a fit person about 15 minutes, but it took my constituents considerably longer and on the way back they had to stop at the community centre and ask someone for a lift to get back home. Such things are happening day in, day out, not just in County Durham but all over the country. The Government may argue that this level of cuts is necessary. That is fair enough, but surely someone must take responsibility for the consequences of those cuts.
	Another constituent of mine, 16-year-old Lauren Peters, attends New College Durham. A few weeks ago she was stranded at Durham bus station. The bus service had been cut due to inclement weather, but the bus company did not alert local colleges about the difficulties. My constituent was stranded without any money and the battery on her phone was about to run out. She had to wait in the cold, damp, bad weather for three hours before her father could come to pick her up.
	We understand that bad weather can cause disruption, but where was the customer care from companies such as Arriva, one of the biggest bus companies in Europe? There was no phone call to local colleges or major employers. I have written to Arriva and the county council, and although I have received a reply from the county council I have yet to hear anything from Arriva. Mrs Peters contacted me the next day to raise the issue and complain. If bus companies are now running merely commercial routes—I believe the route in question was commercial—surely we need better alert systems when there is disruption to help people to get home. There seems to be no customer care.
	Lauren was not the only vulnerable person affected by the disruption that day. I want solutions to the issues I have raised. I want to work with community groups to establish community bus services where possible, and available funding to be used to that effect where subsidies to existing bus services have been withdrawn.
	I know that Durham county council has gained about £374,000 from the rural sustainable community transport initiative, but that is a one-off grant; it does not happen every year. These are austere times and we should be all in this together. My question to the Minister is this: if this level of cuts is necessary, who is taking responsibility for those who fall through the net? Although I will help local authorities and communities as best I can to establish community bus services, does the Minister agree that there is only so much that the local community can do?

Chris Williamson: I will start by telling the Minister that there is great concern in my Derby constituency about the possibility of a pre-Christmas betrayal of the Bombardier work force in the city. In March 2011, the Prime Minister brought the Cabinet to Derby because he felt it was an excellent backdrop that would give credibility to his assertion that he wanted to rebalance the economy. Derby provided a perfect illustration of the sort of economy that the Government—who at the time were relatively new—wanted to create. Within a few weeks, however, that rhetoric sounded hollow. It was followed up in the Budget statement when the Chancellor spoke about the march of the makers:
	“We are only going to raise the living standards of families if we have an economy that can compete in the modern age. So this is our plan for growth. We want the words: ‘Made in Britain’, ‘Created in Britain’, ‘Designed in Britain’ and ‘Invented in Britain’ to drive our nation forward—a Britain carried aloft by the march of the makers. That is how we will create jobs and support families.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]
	However, just a few months later, when the Government could have done something positive to show that they meant those words, they awarded preferred bidder status for the Thameslink contract to Siemens rather than to Bombardier in Derby.
	Ministers seem to have ignored the provisions within the invitation to tender documentation. The ITT states that the successful bidder must demonstrate that it can exploit advances in technology and have a world-class proven solution in one package, but Siemens did not have that. It had not developed a lightweight bogie; indeed, plans were still on the draughtsman’s board and had not even been tested or put into any form of production. In spite of that, however, Ministers decided to appoint Siemens as the preferred bidder.
	That decision has already led to 1,400 job losses in Derby at Bombardier, and considerably more jobs have been lost in the supply chain. The Department for Transport seems not to be acting in the national interest and to be completely out of control. We saw the fiasco of the franchise for the west coast main line and, as we know, that process was suspended. The same civil servants who gave rise to concern over that franchise also worked on the Thameslink contract, yet Ministers seem to draw a veil over that.
	Ministers have also tried to blame EU regulations for the decision to award preferred bidder status to Siemens. However, that simply will not wash because, when convenient, Ministers have ignored EU regulations on the issue. EU regulations are enshrined in English law. Regulation 4 is apposite and states:
	“A contracting authority shall (in accordance with Article 2 of the Public Sector Directive)…treat economic operators equally and in a non-discriminatory way.”
	That did not happen. At the fourth stage of the evaluation process, the DFT adopted a complex methodology involving the use of discount rates as shown in the Treasury Green Book, which is complicated for a layperson like myself. When the Transport Committee took expert evidence, Professor Karel Williams from the Manchester business school stated that there was a
	“bias in favour of Siemens because they had a superior credit rating and that gave them an advantage of maybe several hundred million pounds”.
	It therefore seems clear that the Government are in breach of their obligations under regulation 4.
	The Business Secretary reportedly said that the end result of the evaluation process was inevitable. The ITT makes it clear that the Secretary of State will let the contract. In my view, that makes the Thameslink contract a Government contract. Regulation 23(b) of the public contract regulations makes it clear that, where a bidder has been found guilty of corruption, it should be excluded from the process. We know that Siemens falls into that category, yet the Government have proceeded regardless.
	When the matter has been raised with Ministers, they have claimed that Siemens should not be excluded from the bidding process, and to some extent I agree. Siemens plc is not part of the special purpose company—Cross London Trains—which has been created to take forward the Thameslink contract. Siemens Project Ventures GmbH, which is a division of Siemens AG, is part of that special purpose company. Siemens AG has been convicted of corruption which, in my view, makes it ineligible for the contract unless there is an overriding requirement “in the general interest” to include it—that is what the regulations state.
	As I have said, Ministers say there are no grounds to eliminate Siemens but they are applying the wrong test. They should have been looking at whether it was right to include the special purpose company that includes Siemens AG as part of the consortium. I therefore hope that when he sums up the Minister will give a commitment to look at the issue again. I believe that the Government are in breach of regulations 4 and 23. We will not get value for money, although Ministers claim we will—they are adopting a very expensive model to procure the trains and there are less expensive ways of pursuing that.
	The industry is in great shape and the market is expanding, and we have huge potential and a massive opportunity, so I urge the Minister to ensure that he does not allow the industry in this country to slip through his fingers. He has the power to stop the contract—the invitation to tender makes that extremely clear—to do the right thing and to look at it again. Hopefully, he will give Bombardier in Derby the opportunity to continue to deliver a train manufacturing industry—

Nigel Evans: Order.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow my Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). I pay tribute to him for the incredible campaign he has run in support of the workers in his constituency and the skills that have been brought to the country by the decades—over a century—of train manufacturing in Derby. It would be crime if we lost that. The danger is that, unless the Bombardier contract is issued, there will be further job losses and further loss of train-making skills in this country.
	We do not understand or value enough the heritage of the rail industry in this country, the skills involved in train manufacture and railway development, or the future of the industry. Following the closures, we have around 10,000 miles of track. We have a programme of railway network expansion, and more people travel by train than at any time since the second world war. The majority of the public who have access to railways prefer to use them—there is no question about that.
	If we involve ourselves in a procurement process that specifically encourages sustainable, local-ish or UK-based employment, we will develop our industrial base and provide great opportunities for railway expansion in this country and other places. However, sadly, the model of privatisation adopted by the Conservative Government in the 1990s not only broke up our railway system but handed all the rolling stock to rather dubious leasing companies. Huge profits were made as a result, but 10 years into privatisation the Department for Transport’s procurement policies have moved much more into a totally market-based international comparator system rather than the system used for Transport for London, which has deliberately sought to develop UK-based employment, and fair wages and employment practices and so on.

Simon Burns: If privatisation has been as bad as the hon. Gentleman describes, why, since privatisation, have the number of journeys taken and the number passengers doubled, and why, in 13 years in government, did Labour not seek to reverse it?

Jeremy Corbyn: I had a discussion in 1997 with the then Transport Secretary, Lord Prescott, in which I suggested that we would serve ourselves well if we took the railways back into public ownership. In fact, our discussion took place very close to where the Minister sits now. We were standing next to the mace during a Division—it was an historic moment. His reply was, “We haven’t got the money for that kind of thing. We can’t afford it. It would cost too much”, but the figures show that we are putting more money in subsidy into the private sector-run railways than we ever did into British Rail in the days of public ownership—and the private companies are making considerable profits. The increase in passengers numbers and train services is welcome, as is public investment in railways, but if, for example, we put £8 billion into the west coast main line upgrading, the public should gain the benefit rather than Virgin Trains or another train operating company making a considerable profit.
	I support the points made by my Friend the Member for Derby North on fair employment practices. I hope the Minister can give us some good news. I hope he is not befuddled by Siemens’s claim that it is financially sustainable, because a company that owns its own bank is quite likely to claim that—the two things tend to go together—but instead will consider the huge skill base and traditions in Derby. He should also think forward to the electrification programme and the new rolling stock that will be needed in five, 10, 15 and 20 years’ time. We will have problems if we allow our manufacturing capacity to disappear.
	My Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is in his place, has supported the railway cleaners around the country because of the problems they face. I hope the Minister spares a thought for them. In the midst of all the money that goes into the railway system and the profits that are taken out, some people working for distant contract cleaning companies and others are appallingly paid and badly treated, but nevertheless do important and valuable
	jobs. Will he say he is in favour of a living wage for everyone working in the railway industry as an absolute basic, and in favour of companies employing station and cleaning staff far more directly?
	Virgin Trains has apparently been given a contract to continue running its service because of the collapse of the train operating company tendering process a few months ago. I have five brief questions for the Minister, and I hope he will help us. What discussions were held in the EU prior to awarding the 23-month west coast main line contract to Virgin Trains? Is a copy of the new agreement available? Will existing staffing levels and catering facilities be protected? What taxpayer subsidy will be paid to Virgin for the duration of the contract? Finally, what non-taxpayer or fare payer-supported investment will Virgin Trains make during the 23-month contract? We have reached a pretty pass. The incompetence of the process resulted in a gap, which would have been the ideal opportunity to return the service to public ownership and run it, which is what happens on the east coast main line—a very good service runs on the east coast main line as a result. The east coast main line is a ready-made example of running an effective, publicly owned railway system.
	The Minister will not be surprised that my last point is a local one—I have often spoke of the need for a wider system of electrification. I welcome the Government’s announcement that the midland main line and the Great Western service will be electrified, and that there will be an electrified service in Wales. That is very good indeed. I have raised many times the question of the north London link. The Barking to Gospel Oak line is not electrified, which means that electrically hauled freight services from Felixstowe or Harwich must change to a diesel-hauled locomotive, or that the freight must be diesel-hauled all the way through. Proposals for the electrification of the line have been made and costed, and the Secretary of State assured me that the Department was considering that again—he also promised to meet me and a delegation of north London MPs in that respect. Electrification would make London Overground more efficient and effective and be far more environmentally sustainable for heavy-hauled freight that currently uses the line.

Simon Burns: I welcome this short debate on transport. Given the shortness of time I have and the wide ranging number of questions raised, particularly by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I assure hon. Members that if I do not manage to cover all their points, I will write to them.
	To begin with, I should like to deal with two specific issues, the first of which was raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson). As he will accept—he referred to this from time to time during his comments—tough decisions have had to be taken across the board because of the economic deficit we inherited, and support for bus services could not be exempt. This has meant not only getting the best value for every pound of taxpayers’ money spent, but prioritising the spending that can best support growth, jobs and prosperity. That is one of the reasons transport came out of the spending review in a much stronger position than most people expected.
	I recognise that public transport is, as the hon. Gentleman eloquently pointed out, important for the sustainability and independence of rural communities. Decisions such as where to run services, the frequency of services, the type of vehicle used and the fares charged are mainly a matter for the commercial judgment of the operator concerned. However, where there is not enough demand for a bus route to be commercially profitable in its own right, local authorities do have powers to subsidise bus services. It is essentially a matter for these individual authorities to decide which services are most appropriate for support in their respective areas. These could be traditional bus services or other, more flexible options such as the Link2 service in Durham—a bookable dial-a-ride bus for people making local journeys of up to five miles for which there is no other suitable bus—and the Access Bus scheme, which provides a similar service for people with limited mobility.
	It is for local authorities, working in partnership with their communities, to identify the right transport solutions that meet the economic and environmental challenges faced in their areas and deliver the greatest benefits for their communities. It is heartening to note the proactive role that Darlington and Durham councils have taken to engaging with local people, for instance through the area action partnership boards set up by Durham county council in 2009 as a key way of listening to and working with communities, and the Darlington community partnerships, led by residents, working in partnership with the local authority and other bodies, which take a lead in regenerating their local neighbourhoods. I would also encourage smaller communities such as Hurworth, Sadberge, Middleton St George and Brafferton to continue their excellent work with the Community Transport Association to secure a reliable and affordable local transport network service.
	In the past year, the Government have provided £20 million of new funding for distribution to rural local transport authorities in England, of which around £400,000 in total has been allocated to Durham and Darlington councils to support and kick-start the development of community transport services in their areas. In addition, the local sustainable transport fund has provided both areas with a combined total of more than £6 million, specifically for transport related projects.
	For reasons that we are all aware of, times are tough and we have to be careful with our money, making sure that we get the best value. But I am pleased about the work that has been done locally by local communities and local authorities in the hon. Gentleman’s area to seek to develop the best forms of sustainable transport with the best value for money available.
	I turn now to the final point raised by the hon. Member for Islington North, about the Gospel Oak to Barking scheme, which he has rightly raised on many occasions in the House. I recognise the case for electrification of that line at the same time as we electrify the strategic electric spine route from Southampton to Yorkshire. Transport for London has said it is prepared to pay a share of the Gospel Oak to Barking electrification costs, which I welcome, but the cost is very high—approximately £90 million for 12 miles of railway through suburban London.
	We will work with Network Rail, Transport for London and rail freight operators over the coming year to see whether electrification costs might be reduced and to explore ways of funding. The national rail funding for the five years to 2019 has been committed on our strategic priorities, but if further funding can be found and the business case continues to be robust, I would welcome adding another 12 miles of railway to the 850 route miles we have already funded and authorised for electrification this decade. Either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and a delegation of Members from north London if that would be useful.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister and I look forward to having such a meeting so that we can, I hope, make progress to electrify that last bit of the line.

Simon Burns: In that spirit, I hope that any meetings we have would be positive so that we could make progress.
	I now turn to the contribution from the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) about rail procurement and Bombardier. The coalition Government are committed to continuing to invest in rail, building on its success and facilitating future economic growth. As he knows, we are investing £18 billion in this spending review period alone on a programme of rail improvements as large in scale as anything seen since the Victorian era. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), for Erewash (Jessica Lee) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) have been active campaigners on behalf of Bombardier, which has a key role in Derby’s economy.
	Therefore, I am pleased to be responding to this debate shortly after Southern has announced its intention to exercise an option for 40 additional rolling stock vehicles to be delivered by Bombardier in 2014. Furthermore, Southern is working with the Department to develop proposals for a potential competitive procurement for 116 new vehicles, including options for further vehicles. Ministers expect to be able to make a further announcement on this matter shortly. Bombardier is also among the shortlisted bidders for the Crossrail rolling stock procurement.
	These procurements offer Bombardier and other train manufacturers new opportunities to bid for work. The Thameslink rolling stock contract is complex, as the hon. Gentleman understands, and it introduces much greater responsibility for the train’s performance in service on the part of the train manufacturer and maintainer than is traditionally the case. Therefore it has—quite rightly— taken some time to get the details right. Siemens and its partners in Cross London Trains have been working very closely with the Department for Transport to reach commercial agreement on the Thameslink rolling stock project. I am pleased to say that there has been substantive progress in recent weeks and the Department has now reached commercial agreement on the key elements of the deal with the Cross London Trains consortium. Last night the Cross London Trains consortium published its information memorandum to potential funders.
	This important milestone enables the next stage of the process of further engagement with the debt market to continue to put the necessary financing in place for
	the deal. Our target, once the necessary credit approvals have been secured, is to reach financial closure as soon as possible in the new year. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the importance of the statement I have just made, which is crucial as part of the continuing investment in improving and enhancing the infrastructure and performance of our railways.
	In passing, I note that the hon. Gentleman suggested that the same civil servants who were responsible for the franchising deal for the west coast main line were working on the procurement deals, but I can assure him that that is not the case. I hope that that reassures him.
	Regarding the Crossrail rolling stock contract, we are clear that our priority is to secure the right train at the right price, through a strong and fair procurement competition. This competition is different from rolling stock procurements such as Thameslink that were launched by the previous Administration. It has taken account of the package of measures to reform public procurement announced in the 2011 autumn statement, and it also includes, for example, the commitment of £350 million of public investment to this £1 billion programme. Four bidders—Bombardier, CAF of Spain, Hitachi and Siemens—have submitted initial bids. Crossrail Ltd is responsible for the procurement and is currently assessing bids received at the end of October.

Chris Williamson: Will the Minister confirm whether credit ratings will be a significant factor in determining the Crossrail contract, and whether there will be an announcement in this Chamber on the financial close of the Thameslink contract?

Simon Burns: On the hon. Gentleman’s second point about the final part of that process, we expect a conclusion early in the new year, though I cannot provide a precise date at this point. On Crossrail, as I said to him earlier, the procurement contract is going ahead and normal processes will be abided by and gone through. It is premature at this stage to start speculating on the detail of future processes, because there is an element of commercial confidentially and the deals, checks and balances that one would expect from a normal major procurement of this nature.
	The Crossrail procurement is the responsibility of Crossrail Ltd. It is currently assessing the bids received at the end of October. I expect that all bidders will have submitted strong, competitive bids that meet the exacting requirements of Crossrail, while providing best value for money for the UK taxpayer and future fare payers. Crossrail and Thameslink will have a transformational impact on travel in London and the south-east. They
	will significantly boost jobs and growth more widely in the economy. Their benefits are vital and urgently needed, and the Government remain firmly committed to their delivery.
	The hon. Member for Islington North mentioned a number of other issues. I will write to him about them, except to say—this will come as no surprise to him—that I do not share his enthusiasm for what would in effect be a renationalisation of the railways.
	I should like to ensure that the House is fully aware of what is being done to help Bombardier and Derby. The hon. Member for Derby North will be aware that Bombardier recently secured a £188 million bid to build 130 new railway carriages following a procurement competition run by Southern Railways. Last week, Southern Railways announced that it was exercising an option to invest in 40 new Electrostar carriages from Bombardier. Bombardier is among the suppliers who have bid for the new Crossrail rolling stock, which I referred to earlier, but as the procurement process is live it would be inappropriate to go into details. The Department for Transport is working to develop proposals for a further procurement of 116 rolling stock vehicles, which Southern, if it goes ahead, will be able to bid for. Through its talent and expertise, Bombardier has secured a considerable amount of work. There are a number of significant opportunities for it to seek to make more procurement bids successfully, which would lead to a bright future for the company. If it secures all the potential bids, it will help it to strengthen its capabilities and work force, and allow it to develop its potential.
	In conclusion, the Government do not just talk the talk, they walk the walk. In the past two and a half years, we have invested record amounts of money—billions of pounds—to play catch-up from the failure of successive previous Governments to invest in our railway infrastructure, so that we have a first-class, fit-for-purpose railway network that can compete with our European competitors and ensure that we get a higher standard of journey for passengers and more freight on to the railways. In recent years, since privatisation, we have seen freight on our networks increase by 60%, with all the benefits that follow on from taking the freight off our road networks. [ Interruption. ] On the prompting of one of my hon. Friends, I would like to wish you and the staff, Mr Deputy Speaker, a very happy Christmas, secure in the knowledge that we are investing significantly to improve our railways. If you are returning to your constituency for Christmas on the west coast main line with a Virgin train, I wish you a prompt, enjoyable and speedy journey.

General Matters

Nigel Evans: As we move on, maybe this is the time for me to talk the talk and wish all hon. Members and staff working at Parliament a very merry Christmas and a happy and healthy 2013. It would not be a Christmas general debate without a contribution from Mr David Amess, so let us start with Mr David Amess.

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, there are a number of points I wish to raise. Members are familiar with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. A number of constituents have raised with me the fact that they think it perverse that they cannot have the name and address of the person who raises the FOI inquiry. I agree with them; I think the law should be changed.
	In October, I met Paul Atkinson, from Prysmian Group, who is very troubled by the state of electrical cables. He fears that safety regulation of imports is not currently strong enough, and that this is causing fires, as well as the loss of British jobs. Having recently met fire officers in my constituency, I think this is a real problem.
	Earlier this year, I secured a debate on the lack of burial space. There were excellent contributions from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), and a very good reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant). I hope that further work will be done on this issue because, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, the only things we can be certain of in life are death and taxes.
	I have long campaigned in this House on the role of the Iranian resistance movement. There have been gross violations of human rights in Iran and the sharp rise in public executions continues. Her Majesty’s Government need further to support democracy and change in Iran, and the National Council of Resistance of Iran must be recognised as a legitimate opposition movement.
	A few weeks ago, there was a power cut in my house and that of my next-door neighbour. I complained to E.ON, with whom I settle the bill, as did my neighbour. It was passed on to UK Power Networks, who passed me on to the energy ombudsman, which was an absolute waste of time. No one seems to be responsible for these matters, and my neighbour and I want compensation.
	One of my constituents is particularly worried about postal vote fraud. To prove a point, he put five fictional names down at his address to register them as voters, and received postal votes for all of them. The census was obviously not checked to verify the residents in the property. He was arrested for electoral fraud, but the police brought no charges. We are both anxious about what appears to be a very lax system.
	Last month, I visited Broadway Opticians in my constituency to see at first hand the different enhanced eye care services that optometrists and opticians can deliver. Community optometrists offer patient-centred, cost-effective quality eye care services in convenient, accessible locations. A key benefit of implementing those enhanced services is a reduction in referral rates
	to GPs and A and E units. These services are very patchy in our area. I ask what plans my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has to make sure that these enhanced services are available across the country.
	No doubt the whole House would like to see driving become safer—according to my wife, if anyone drove with me they would see why. I was contacted by the Association of British Insurers, which is seeking to change the law on learning to drive. It wants a minimum one-year period for learning to drive and a ban on intensive driving courses. At the same time, it would like to allow teenagers to start learning to drive at 16 and a half, although as a politician I am not so sure about that.
	On an issue of great concern to senior citizens, constituents of mine have been informed that their pensions will no longer be paid into the Post Office, but instead will be paid into a bank account. The letters informing them of the change came from Her Majesty’s Treasury, not the Post Office. This change is very difficult for many senior citizens to manage, and I urge Her Majesty’s Treasury as well as the Post Office to think through this change very carefully.
	Another constituent of mine has raised with me his issues with Wonga, the pay-day loans company. He is particularly concerned about its television advertising, which does not mention the annual percentage rate of 4,214 applied to loans. It is worrying how easily one can obtain money from such companies. Its website guarantees quick decisions and money delivered swiftly. Any company making such quick decisions on loans can hardly be spending much time considering how the loans might affect the person’s life or how it could be paid back.
	Dredging is damaging the environment in my constituency. It is affecting the cockle and the fishing industries, and is fundamentally changing the Southend coastline and affecting Southend pier, the longest in the world. I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. There has been a huge reduction in the amount of mud on the foreshore in Southend and Leigh. The pace of change is very dangerous. I have mentioned it in the House before, and I will continue my ongoing campaign to look after the Southend coastline.
	Yet another constituent met me recently to discuss the creation of the supermarket watchdog, which is part of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, introduced in September. Supermarkets can treat suppliers badly without fear of any consequences. Although supermarkets are clearly beneficial to society, we must be careful to protect their customers and suppliers. I congratulate ActionAid on its long campaign and look forward to seeing the watchdog ensure fairness for producers, supermarkets and customers.
	A constituent of mine, James Price, who belongs to the Plymouth Brethren, has been in contact with me on a number of occasions regarding the Charity Commission’s plan to remove charity status from the Brethren’s gospel halls. Not only should this group be able to keep its current status, but I am worried about the implications if it cannot do so. I was pleased with yesterday’s ten-minute rule motion on this subject. What is to say that other religious organisations, such as the Church of England or my own Catholic Church, will remain safe if the gospel halls are not?
	The final subject that I wish to raise is art. Art is wonderful and should be cherished. Southend West is a centre of cultural excellence. I enjoyed hearing the inaugural concert of Southend youth orchestra and was particularly delighted to hear from David Stanley’s group, the Music Man Project, which offers a unique service for people with learning disabilities. It is absolutely wonderful. David and the orchestra deserve a national audience, and it was my joy to go to No. 10 Downing street yesterday and present the Prime Minister with the DVD. Furthermore, I will be organising an event called “Southend’s Got Talent” on 15 February further to promote the arts in my constituency, and I hope that hon. Members will join me on 4 March in the Jubilee Room, where we will be celebrating all that is wonderful in Southend.
	This year, my mother turned 100, and we enjoyed the diamond jubilee and the Olympic games. I do not know what can top it next year, but some of us will be celebrating 30 years in Parliament. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all the staff a very happy Christmas, and everyone else good health, peace, prosperity and a wonderful new year.

Valerie Vaz: The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) is always a difficult act to follow, but it is always a pleasure to do so, and I look forward to hearing the result of his talent contest.
	I wish to inject a serious note, because I am asking the Government to rethink their consultation paper, “Judicial Review: proposals for reform”. I speak as someone with experience working for the previous Government on judicial reviews. Yes, they come in thick and fast, but in my view they are a necessary safety valve for society and uphold the rule of law. They are the foundations of our democracy. What is a judicial review? It is a review of a decision by a public authority—a review of legality, unfairness or reasonableness, or of whether there was a personal interest in any decision taken by a public authority.
	My first concern is about the consultation period. The paper was published last week, and, in my view, the consultation period is not long enough. I have been in many judicial reviews where judges have expressed concern that there has been little or hardly any consultation. This consultation is taking place over the Christmas period. It is not even the length of a legal term. It will last for six weeks, at least two of which will be taken up by Christmas and new year. That might even be grounds for a challenge. What is the case for change? Page nine of the document states that judicial review has developed far beyond its original intentions. That is not a proper reason based on evidence; it is an opinion.
	We are dealing with old powers that go back centuries. Some of the remedies have Latin words such as certiorari, mandamus and even habeas corpus. They have been exercised more extensively, because there has been much more legislation, and that is my second point. The Government are concerned about the growth of judicial review, but, because there is more legislation, there will be more challenges. When decisions are made and discretion goes beyond what Parliament has laid down in legislation, of course there should be challenges. These proceeding
	are not brought before the court lightly. Judges take very seriously the use and abuse of the court process and do their best to filter out vexatious claims.
	My third point is that the Government want to change the process for granting permission to bring judicial review proceedings. Their own evidence shows that permission hearings—first on paper, then orally—are a good filter of cases, so what are the figures? In 2011, 7,600 applications were considered by the court, but only one in six was granted. That makes 1,200. That, to me, shows a court doing its job. It is one gigantic filter. Furthermore, only 300 permissions were granted for an oral hearing.
	The oral permissions are important, because they are about getting a fair crack of the whip—to use a judicial review term—and it is right that those cases that have been filtered out get a second chance, because there might be new evidence. Even when they get to the stage of a hearing and an appeal, judges, particularly in immigration cases, are now ordering that the appeal can be pursued from abroad. I am astounded at the suggestion on page 11 that a victory in a judicial review is only a pyrrhic victory. It is a victory in terms of court. It is referred back to the original body for consideration, either because the decision was exercised unlawfully or unreasonably, or on one of the other grounds of judicial review. That is a proper victory within the grounds of judicial review.
	I am also concerned about the timeliness aspect. The Government say that judicial review cases take a long time. These are not cases in the Jarndyce v. Jarndyce mould. Where is the evidence that there is delay beyond the three months? Most cases are dealt with in a timely fashion. There is a pre-action protocol that allows information to be exchanged before a case goes to court to be settled. The Government want to reduce the time limit from three months to six weeks in planning cases. That will not make them go away or get dealt with any quicker. What has to be looked at is the listing for a hearing. That is where the delay is. I have said before in the Chamber that we need more judges and more court time. The fact that some of the cases have been heard outside the Strand—in Cardiff, Manchester and other areas where the administrative court sits—is taking cases away from London, and that is a good thing.
	My next point concerns fees. The Justice Secretary said that judicial review was being increasingly used by organisations for public relations purposes, but increasing the fees will not make them use it any less. Those organisations can afford it; it is the individuals or the residents groups who will not be able to afford the fees and therefore will be denied access to justice. If we remove access to justice, we remove one of the important parts of a democracy. In my view, the Justice Secretary has not made the case for reform. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to ask the Justice Secretary what discussions he has had with those who drew up the civil procedure rules about these changes, and what representations he has had from the judiciary, lawyers and others who use the administrative court stating that there is a need for reform.
	The case for reform is flawed. As Tom Bingham, the eminent judge, wrote in his excellent book, “The Rule of Law”, judges review the lawfulness of administrative action taken by others; they are the auditors of legality—no more no less. If we are to live in a democracy, we have
	to expect decisions to be made in cases which are not acceptable to the Executive or Parliament. We would not wish to have a judiciary that agrees with everything the Executive or Parliament does. Judicial review is one of the pillars that hold up a just society. Unforeseen consequences of legislation and the exercise of discretion can be tested in the courts through JR. We not only have great expectations but—in JR jargon—legitimate expectations that the safety valve for society that is judicial review will remain intact. In judicial review, judges exercise a constitutional power that the rule of law requires them to exercise. That is the way it should be.
	May I add my voice to others in wishing everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year and in thanking the staff for all their hard work over the year? Let me also say, on this auspicious day—20/12/2012—that I hope everyone’s dreams come true.

Craig Whittaker: I do not intend to take up anywhere near my allocated time, Mr Deputy Speaker; instead, I hope to be punchy and pithy.
	Everyone in this House will remember the catastrophic nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April in 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power in Ukraine. Because of that disaster, Chernobyl Children’s Lifeline, like other charities, was set up in 1991. It works hard for the children affected by the disaster. I need to declare a small interest in the charity. In 2001, when I was chairman of Heptonstall parish council, Chernobyl Children’s Lifeline was my charity of the year, and many of my constituents in the Calder Valley, along with people from all over the nation, host those young people on recuperation holidays.
	Belarus and Ukraine, where most of the charity’s work is focused, received more than 70% of the radioactive fallout from the nuclear explosion. As a result, thousands of children are still born every year with, or go on to develop, thyroid cancer, bone cancer or leukaemia. The charity does much work to help these children. It provides ongoing supplies of multivitamins and basic health care products to the children, having delivered thousands of tonnes over the last two decades. The charity helps children too sick to travel by providing chemotherapy medicines to children’s cancer hospitals in Minsk and Gomel, as well as other regions. It provides support with medicines and equipment to babies’ homes in Minsk and other orphanages around the country. When needed, the charity brings children to the UK for long-term medical care and education.
	I want to speak about the charity’s work in bringing child victims of the Chernobyl disaster over to the UK for four-week recuperation breaks. More than 46,000 young children have been brought over to stay with UK host families since the breaks started in 1992. Traditionally, for the last 16 and a half years our Government have provided gratis visas for these recuperation breaks, like every other country in Europe. The breaks help to prolong those young children’s lives and give them good clean air and good living for just four weeks of their lives. The gratis visas are due to cease in March next year. The charity will have to find an additional £89 per child to bring them to the UK for four weeks’ recuperation.
	The visas are currently paid for by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from a budget of £250,000, but the actual cost is only £130,000. The money is transferred to the UK Border Agency for the service it provides. I have received a written reply from the Minister for Europe who has explained the reasons why the visas will cease. The money will apparently keep one of our smaller embassies open, it equates to full-time equivalent staff whom the FCO does not have to make redundant, and he feels that he gave the charities enough notice of the FCO’s intent when they were advised of the change back in November 2010.
	I would ask my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House whether a solution can be found, because this charge, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Home Office, is just that: a charge. There is no physical product, apart from just the process. The true cost of providing the visas is much less than the budget spent on them, and given the 0.7% of GDP that we spend on international aid, the amount is so small that it is almost embarrassing that we should be cutting support for those young, dying children. May I also ask my right hon. Friend whether, rather than giving a blanket no, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will please seek a solution with the Home Office—and perhaps even the Department for International Development —to ensure that we continue to do the morally right thing and help this and other charities to prolong these young lives?
	Mr Deputy Speaker, may I, like others, take this opportunity to wish you and the whole House—Members, staff and their families—a wonderful Christmas and an incredibly peaceful new year?

Graham Allen: It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your now traditional role of the Speaker’s version of Santa Claus, giving presents to the Back Benchers. I hope that next year we will see you enter into the spirit a little more, with something less sombre than your morning suit—perhaps a pair of antlers, a red nose or some such. We look forward to that with great expectation.
	It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), who uses these debates in the way they should be used by Back Benchers. He had great support in all parts of the House as he spoke. We commend him on the resilience he has shown in looking after the interests of the children from Chernobyl. In a way, that shows the value of these debates and, indeed, the Backbench Business Committee, which some colleagues who are new to the House might rather take for granted. Those of us who have been here a little longer know what a hard fought campaign it was—including on our side of the House, through those on our own Front Bench—to get the Backbench Business Committee and give Back Benchers the voice they deserve in their own legislature. I hope we will soon add the other half of the brace that was recommended by the Wright Committee, which is to have a House business committee—the promise is to do that this year—which will allow this Chamber some measure of participation in setting the business of the whole legislature, rather than leaving it entirely to the Government. I hope that colleagues will join together in progressing that over the next year.
	I would like to place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for announcing yesterday that medals will be awarded not only to Bomber Command, but to the Arctic convoys. I have followed this issue for the best part of two decades. If I can be blunt, I think it was a stain on the record of the last Government that so many of us had to work so hard—and fruitlessly—and that by the time the Prime Minister announced this recognition yesterday, so many of the brave men and women who fought in the Arctic convoys, Bomber Command or elsewhere had sadly passed away. Only their families will now have the honour and admiration from all of us for the sacrifices those men and women made. I hope that the Ministry of Defence, which is notorious for its bureaucratic ways and failing to recognise the sacrifice of service people, will have learnt a lesson and will now act expeditiously where the needs of servicemen are raised by colleagues in this House, from whichever part of the House they come.

Bob Stewart: My understanding is that those in Bomber Command are getting a clasp to an existing medal, probably the Europe Star, that says “Bomber Command”—I hope not, but that is my understanding. I would like to see a medal, just like for those in the Arctic convoys.

Graham Allen: It is important for those who served in Bomber Command and survived—it had the highest attrition rate of any theatre of combat in the second world war—get the full recognition they deserve. Finally the Arctic convoy veterans have got it. They have been honoured effusively in the former Soviet Union—what is now Russia—and indeed continue to be, in a way that we had to struggle for in our own country.
	Having said that these are valuable moments for Back Benchers, let me raise a number of constituency and Back-Bench issues that are sadly all too familiar in my constituency. The first concerns the treatment of disabled people in my constituency. Many who are applying for incapacity benefit have to go through work capacity assessments with the Department for Work and Pensions through its stand-in, the French firm Atos, which colleagues in all parts of the House will have had experience of.
	The waiting time for a disabled person in my constituency to be refused what they regard as their rightful entitlement because of their incapacity is 57 weeks, in some cases. It is unacceptable in a civilised society that they should have to wait that long for a decision on appeal. That is not the way we should treat our disabled people. It would not be good if it happened to just one person, or even if it happened to 10% of the people who appeal and who get what they deserve at the end of the day, but in fact, one in three cases are overturned on appeal. Those people need their incapacity benefit to live their lives effectively. The situation is unacceptable, and I have recently written to the Justice Secretary to express my concern. I was assured, in a letter from him dated 5 December, that extra resources were being brought in to press the numbers down and to enable the cases to be dealt with more expeditiously. I am very grateful for that but, sadly, two days later I received a letter from the Tribunals Service saying that the waiting times had gone up, and that it was now taking an average of 57 weeks for these cases to be dealt with.
	I have a constituent named Susan Goldsmith who had her assessment in August 2011. She heard in October that she had failed. She felt aggrieved and immediately appealed. She lodged her appeal with the Tribunals Service in November and, following interventions by me, her appeal was finally heard this month. The judge took only a few minutes to decide to allow her appeal and to dismiss the opinion of Atos. My constituent, who needs her incapacity benefit, had experienced a delay of 54 weeks. I have had many similar cases, as have colleagues throughout the House. The system is a shambles, and I hope that colleagues will continue to write in about it until we get this right and start to treat our disabled people with the respect they deserve and to deal with their cases in a timely manner.
	There are more than 500 young children in Nottinghamshire who are deaf or have a degree of deafness, and the National Deaf Children’s Society has asked me to raise a specific issue that is pertinent to them. I am going to write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and ask him to look again at the personal independence payment that will replace the disability living allowance on 26 April next year. I am afraid that the change could result in a step backwards for many of those deaf young people. Following the abolition of the bottom rate of DLA, all those affected will have to apply for the bottom rate of the personal independence payment but, inexplicably, that will not be available to deaf young people unless they use sign language. In other words, those who use lip-reading or some other means of communication will fail to qualify for those payments, despite having previously been entitled to DLA. Only 10% of deaf young people use sign language, which means that 90% of them will not be entitled to apply for the PIP. I hope that that is simply an unintended consequence, and that my writing to the Secretary of State will result in his looking at the regulations and putting this right, so that all those deaf young people will not be hit disproportionately by this measure.
	Another group that I would like to talk about came to visit us some time ago—

Nigel Evans: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time has run out.

Simon Hughes: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for presiding over our last debate before Christmas. I have one specific subject that I want to raise, and a couple of very little things that I shall mention at the end.
	A lot of my constituency casework—about 40%—relates to the Home Office and to the UK Border Agency, and many of the cases involve people who are here legitimately and who want to renew their visas. The process is simply not working, and we need to sort that out. All sorts of people are affected, including people who are working here and need to renew their visa in order to carry on doing their job, and people who came here as spouses and need to renew their status to be able to continue to live with their wife, husband or partner.
	People can choose how to apply to renew their visas. They can apply by post, or in person after booking an appointment online. The applications are not free. The
	minimum cost is about £300 and the maximum is about £2,000, so people are making a significant contribution. Both application systems have problems, and they are causing my constituents, and those of many other colleagues, severe inconvenience. It is possible to use the premium same-day service, and it costs between £300 and £400 more to apply in person than to apply by post.
	My constituents tell me that the system often releases new appointments at midnight, which is inconvenient, and because everyone logs on to the website at midnight, the system regularly crashes. The website also has basic technical errors. One constituent, a friend of mine named Selcuk Akinci, found that it was offering appointments only for 2020, which was not particularly useful. There are rarely any appointments available within two months, although that fact is not advertised anywhere. Most people, quite reasonably, think about applying to extend their stay only one or two months before their current visa is due to expire. Many therefore find that they cannot get an appointment before their leave expires. They then have to apply by post, which often means a six-month wait without being able to travel. People will not have expected that, and it can cause real problems for them, especially if they need to visit family regularly or if their work involves frequent travel. This problem can often prevent people from doing their job, if they need to travel for work.
	Appointments can be made at any of the seven public inquiry offices in the UK. The system tells people where the next available appointment is, and they might find that they have to go from south London to Glasgow or Birmingham. Many people have to travel a long way for their appointment. When they arrive, even if they have booked the premium same-day service, there is no guarantee that the application will be processed on the same day. If the UKBA decides that further checks are necessary, the application is taken out of the premium service queue and put into the postal applications queue, which means that it could take up to six months to process. There is no refund of the premium fee in those circumstances.
	People have no way of knowing whether their case will require further checks, which can be triggered by many different factors. There can be genuinely good reasons for carrying such checks out. For example, the person’s name might generate a hit on the police national computer, they might have used a different identity in the past, or they might have no leave to remain at the time of their application. However, further checks are sometimes triggered for bad reasons. Whatever the reason, the person concerned is not allowed to talk to anyone. They are taken out of the premium application process and told that their case has gone into the postal system and that they have to go home and wait, perhaps for more than three months. The case is placed in a kind of “cannot process it today” queue and sent away to a casework centre.
	Cases are sometimes referred for further checks for illegitimate reasons. My senior caseworker, James Harper, deals with such cases every day in our Bermondsey office, and I deal with them often. For example, a person’s records might not have been properly updated on the UKBA database. In a recent case, a Ghanaian couple travelled all the way to Birmingham so that the husband could apply to extend his marriage visa in the
	normal way. However, Mr Kusi’s records had not been properly updated on the Home Office system to show his existing leave to remain. It therefore appeared to the officers at the inquiry office that he had no right to apply, even though he did, and the couple were turned away and left with only three days to apply by post before his existing visa expired. The couple pleaded with the officers to ring the visa office that had dealt with the original application, but were told that that was not possible and that they would have to leave. This is really unacceptable.
	In a further case, an Iranian woman in my constituency was applying to extend her stay as the wife of a British citizen. Her case was referred for further checks because it was believed that she did not have high enough English language test scores: level 4.0 on the IELTS—International English Language Testing System—scale in reading and writing. In fact, this was a misinterpretation of the rules, as level 4.0 is required only in speaking and listening. My constituent qualified and her case was sent on, but it was subject to a long delay; only after we intervened did the UKBA admit that an error had been made and then refund the additional premium fee.

Lyn Brown: This is quite unusual, but I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman for the second time in two weeks. In the spirit of Christmas, may I offer him another minute?

Simon Hughes: I am grateful, and I hope there will be a lot of common ground on these issues.
	When people apply by post, the system often takes far too long. We need a system whereby people have certainty, because they are trying to organise their lives, and UKBA gets its act together.
	I offer some suggestions for a solution. First, if someone has paid the premium fee and gone to the office but a question arises, they should not automatically be told, “It’s going off to the casework centre.” A real person should speak to the individual and seek to resolve the question there and then—it cannot be beyond the wit of people to sort that out—as with any other normal customer service operation.
	Secondly, when people have paid a premium fee, they are entitled to expect a quicker service than if they had applied by post without paying the premium fee, even if their case is referred for further checks. That does not happen, but it should do, and I hope UKBA will change it, as such cases should not just go into the same pool as the postal applications. Lastly, if it emerges that somebody’s case has been referred for further checks in error, as is frequently the case, there should at least be a partial refund of the premium fee, if not a total refund.
	I hope that this part of the UKBA operation, which is clearly not fit for purpose, can get its act together. I will be grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), for taking this matter away with him, passing it to the Home Office and, hopefully, getting it sorted soon.
	To finish quickly, I entirely endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz): the Government should be very careful about reducing the judicial review system. We have developed administrative law in this country for a purpose. There are many more
	Government decisions so we need to be careful about taking away people’s rights to challenge administrative decisions. I shall certainly put in my submission, and I hope that the Government will pay heed to it.
	I join in the congratulations to the Government on at last and belatedly announcing the honour for the Arctic convoys veterans. I have regularly raised the issue with Ministers, and constituents have regularly raised it with me. These brave people, who went through the most difficult circumstances to make sure that the lifeline between us and our Russian allies was kept open, did a phenomenal job. They rightfully deserve to be honoured. Thank God some of them are still alive to enjoy that honour.
	This year has been not only jubilee year and a fantastic Olympic and Paralympic year, but the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Dickens. I end with a quote from him:
	“I will honour Christmas in my heart, and keep it all year.”
	Thus said Dickens, who had big Southwark connections. To that, I add greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all my colleagues, and my thanks to House staff for looking after us so well. I also give my particular best wishes to two people: the oldest woman in Britain, a constituent of mine who became 113 on 7 December and who still lives in her own council flat in Bermondsey; and my older brother, who has a significant birthday tomorrow.

Thomas Docherty: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who spoke so eloquently about issues relating to the Border Agency.
	I would like, if I may, to raise four issues before the House rises. The first is about a constituent who was recently subjected to a serious assault in his own home. There had been a dispute between neighbours and the perpetrator came round and head-butted and assaulted my constituent, leaving him with a broken nose and requiring ongoing treatment for post-traumatic stress. He obviously had to have his broken nose repaired, but he also had to attend a head injury clinic.
	It is regrettable, to say the least, that as a result of the changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, my constituent is no longer eligible for compensation, despite all the trauma he has suffered. It is worth pointing out that under Scots law, the serious assault charge brought against his neighbour is the second most serious of all after attempted murder. I hope the Minister will say whether the Government will reconsider such important cases.
	Secondly, it is right that we have heard such eloquent words across the House about the Arctic convoy and Bomber Command. Some men and women will not be spending their Christmas with their families and their loved ones because they are serving our nation, often in very difficult and dangerous places. Not the least of those places is Afghanistan, but we have personnel around the world who are away from home in Germany, Cyprus, the Falklands and elsewhere.
	Thirdly, I want to raise the issue of the financial challenges that many of those personnel face. I shall use the example of one of my constituents who is posted in
	Germany. This soldier is now a sergeant, and she has been in the Army for going on for 20 years. When she was first deployed to Germany in 2009, she received £650 a month from the living overseas allowance. At that time, she was mother to one child. While she was a single parent, she received the married/accompanied plus one child element and one “get yourself home” claim for her and her child each year, amounting to £180 for a flight or a ferry. As a result of changes introduced by the Ministry of Defence in the last year, she now receives just £350 a month in allowances, although she now has two children and is married. She is more than £300 a month worse off.
	Frankly, there is little difference between the rate of support my constituent receives in comparison with what a single soldier receives. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether the Government view that as entirely equitable. She receives slightly more in travel allowances with three “get yourself home” payments, but each one has dropped in value. Rather than getting £180 for her and her children, she gets £150, which anyone travelling will know does not really cover the cost of travel from Germany back to Scotland. As she rightly points out, this makes it difficult for service personnel to serve our country overseas. It is particularly difficult for those with young families to volunteer for service in places such as Germany.
	On the issue of housing for ex-service personnel, we greatly welcome the military covenant as a step in the right direction. Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), I had the privilege of serving on the Armed Forces Bill Committee, which took the legislation through the House of Commons. I welcome the fact that many local authorities are now doing more to support service personnel who are leaving the military. I would like to praise Councillor David Ross, convener of housing in Fife council, as he has taken a particular interest in this matter.
	We have a problem, however, in that someone from Scotland whose last posting was in England, Northern Ireland or Germany, will not, on leaving the Army or the other two services, go to the top of the housing register. Such people are effectively at the very bottom. Despite giving perhaps 18 or 22 years of service to this country, such people are treated iniquitously. I hope the Minister will talk to his Ministry of Defence colleagues and write to let me know whether the MOD is going to work with English local authorities and the three devolved Administrations to ensure that, no matter where someone’s last posting is—in the UK or overseas—they will receive equal treatment for housing. That is the least we can do for our servicemen and women.
	Finally, I want to raise the issue of the regulation of postal services. The Royal Mail continues to be regulated by Ofcom, as you will be aware, yet its rival services do not have the same level of regulation. Local representatives of the Communication Workers Union have met me, as they have done right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, to flag up this concern. The current position allows a firm such as TNT to cherry-pick its services. Whereas Royal Mail has to deliver on six days a week, come wind, rain or—certainly in Scotland—a bit of snow, other companies are not subject to such regulations. The CWU has therefore rightly asked Ofcom to consider taking on a regulatory responsibility for the rival services. They should not be subject to any additional
	burdens, but they should have the same level of regulation as Royal Mail. Will the Minister write to me, outlining what he is doing to correct this anomaly?
	Finally, may I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, your colleagues and the whole House a very safe and prosperous Christmas and new year, and may I also thank all those who support us, including the Hansard writers who turn our utterances into something a bit more coherent, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks and in particular those in the private office of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House, who do so much good work on our behalf, and who have helped the Deputy Leader in getting his responses right for today?

Bob Stewart: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). He talked about the military covenant and, as it is Christmas time, I wish to carry on that theme and remind Members of what is happening to our soldiers in Afghanistan. I shall talk about current operations there. We have lost 438 people so far, while 2,000-plus have been very seriously injured, and a considerable proportion of them are triple or double amputees. This year alone, we have lost 43 men killed in action.
	The enemy in Afghanistan—the Taliban—is deadly and skilful. When we first went into Helmand in 2006, the enemy took us on very strongly. The Taliban tried to take us on conventionally, face to face. We had our troops in what were called platoon houses, which were isolated and unsupported. That was a mistake. The Taliban surrounded them and tried to take them out in bitter slugging matches. Some of our troops had to spend very long periods in stand-to positions—their sentry positions—and even had to sleep in those positions. In the case of several platoon houses, it was touch and go whether they would be taken out, and only massive bombardment—which was not good, as it destroyed so much around the bases—prevented that. In the end, however, through the long summer of 2006, the Taliban were defeated.
	The Taliban then changed their tactics. They turned to improvised explosive devices and hit-and-run tactics—guerrilla tactics. That proved devastating, because our vehicles were not equipped to take hits from land mines. More important, we did not have the helicopters to fly in and get our men when they were hurt or resupply troops. After a while, however, we again got our response right: we got better vehicles and more helicopters.
	The Taliban’s tactics therefore changed again. Now they are coming in close to us, using uniformed Afghan national security forces personnel, some of whom are Taliban, but others might just be people with grudges. They are coming in close to our soldiers, who are trying to mentor the Afghan forces to get them as good as possible, so that when we leave they will be in a great position to carry on and secure their country, which is in our interests. Nine of the 43 men killed in action this year were victims of what is called insider murders or, euphemistically, green on blue attacks. We are paying a very high blood price, therefore, and the people responsible are hiding among our friends.
	The situation is very difficult for our soldiers, but they have an incredible generosity of spirit. I have spoken to a number of them and the vast majority say, “We can’t do anything else, because if we don’t mentor and keep close to the Afghan national army and police, we will not be doing our duty by them and we will not be supporting our friends, because the majority of the people who come to kill us are not the people we work with. They are usually strangers—strangers in uniform.” Most of our soldiers say, “We’ve got to continue with this dangerous activity. The dilemma is that if we stay close to the Afghan army and police to mentor them, we stand a much greater risk of being killed, but if we leave them, they will think we are deserting them, and we will fail in our objective, which is to help the Afghan national security forces get up to speed.”

Thomas Docherty: I have the privilege of serving on the Defence Committee with the hon. Gentleman. On the issue he is discussing, I recently had some correspondence with the Minister for the Armed Forces and I would be happy to share that with the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that those responsible for these attacks are a tiny minority of the population. Does he agree that we should recognise the incredible bravery of the men of the Afghan national forces, as many of them face intimidation for having joined up?

Bob Stewart: Yes, I agree. In the last month, some 700 members of the Afghan national security forces have been dismissed as they are considered unreliable, and the Afghan forces are taking a very high casualty rate, which is greater than our own.
	It is extremely tricky to withdraw from a military operation. There are two years to go now, and I am sure our Army will be up to it, because we are good at tricky operations. I want our soldiers to leave with their heads held high, feeling that at least some of the sacrifice has been worth it.
	When we went into Afghanistan in 2001 and again in 2003, the mission was simple: to stop the threat that emanated from that country against our country and our allies. Other missions that have been talked about—bringing democracy, countering drugs, improving the lot of women, education—are extremely laudable, but they were not the mission our soldiers were sent into Afghanistan to achieve.
	I want us to leave Afghanistan having got it into a condition whereby it will never hurt our country or our allies again. That is the mission I want us to achieve by the time our soldiers leave. If we do that, we will have achieved something. If we do that, at least it will be some compensation to those 438 families who have lost their loved ones. If we do not succeed in doing that, it will not be the fault of our courageous and gallant sailors, airmen and soldiers who have fought this bitter conflict for 11 years. We must not blame them if we do not succeed.
	I want to end by sending my personal best wishes to our soldiers, sailors and airmen who are fighting at the moment. On behalf of everyone in this House, I wish them the very best at Christmas. When we go on recess, their job does not change. They are still mentoring the Afghan national police and Afghan national army, they are still patrolling and they are still putting their lives at risk. I spare a thought also for the families at home who
	remain terrified that the people from their family who have been sent, at our behest, to do their duty in Afghanistan might not come back or might be hurt. God bless them all, and merry Christmas to them.

Helen Goodman: May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and say to him how much he epitomises the benefits to the House of having people with so much experience and so much to contribute to our understanding of military matters?
	I wish to talk about the economic situation of my constituency. Some 100 years ago, the north-east was the main driver of economic development not just in this country, but in the whole of the British empire. Today, the north-east is still the most successful exporting region outside London. That is because it has the largest car plant in Europe; it has the largest chemical plant in the UK; it is leading in electric vehicle manufacturing; it is at the centre of sustainable energy innovation; and it can lead in the new industry of offshore wind. So I wish to pose the question: in this Government’s quest to restart growth, why do they not look to the north-east?
	In order fully to develop the north-east’s potential, we need a region-wide approach that brings together the public and private sectors; concentration on those industrial clusters where the region’s university research and development can be translated into innovation; skills and retraining for adults and young people, so that people losing jobs in public administration can reasonably take up new opportunities in the private sector and so that young people are given a fair chance; a fair share of the Government’s infrastructure spend, particularly to improve transport and connectivity; and investment in housing and place making.
	Unfortunately, what the Government have delivered to the north-east is massive cuts. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the scale of the cuts in 2010 was huge—in 2010 it came to £2.8 billion, which was 7% of the value of the regional economy. The cuts were also unfair; the cuts to the north-east’s local authorities were three times the scale of those in the south-east. In other words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took £1,000 from every man, woman and child in the region. The cuts in the north-east are even larger than the cuts being faced by the Spanish people.
	I had some new analysis undertaken by Oxford Economics on the second-round effects—the knock-on effects on the private sector—to see why we have such a high level of shop closures on the high streets in our region. Its analysis showed that there had been a further £1 billion in lost output; that is a 10% drop in the size of the regional economy. If the International Monetary Fund is right, the second-round effects are even greater, at £3.5 billion.

Guy Opperman: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech, and I accept that difficult struggles lie ahead. However, on skills, does she not accept that the number of apprenticeships has doubled in her area? On infrastructure, does she not accept that this Government have done the A1 strongly, all the way
	to Newcastle and potentially beyond? The north-east also had the third largest increase in employment in the whole country in the last quarter.

Helen Goodman: I am afraid I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I was about to point out that last year, of the £40 billion infrastructure budget put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the north-east received 0.03%. As a consequence, unemployment in the north-east is the highest in the entire country at 9.9%. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that public sector job losses so far are already at 45,000 and Oxford Economics projects that total job losses will be 68,000, whereas 46,000 new jobs will be created. So, in 10 years’ time, we will be left with a jobs deficit of 20,000.
	The Government talked a lot about rebalancing the economy but have tipped the scales further against the north. Given the opportunities for growth in the north-east, that is at the whole country’s expense. [Interruption.] If I may say so, it would be more polite for the Deputy Leader of the House to listen to my speech rather than to the chuntering of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman).
	How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer use the chance he had in the autumn statement? On 5 December, he announced new capital spend in the region of £142 million, with £64 million spent on road improvements near Gateshead and £78 million on housing. At first blush, as the hon. Member for Hexham said, it sounded quite good. In fact, however, once again it was only 3% of the total capital spending proposed by the Chancellor.
	Let us look at the other measures taken by the Chancellor, which will dwarf that capital spending in the long run. Yesterday, we heard that he had taken another £42 million from councils in the north-east, not just next year but every year. He also introduced the strivers’ tax on people on low incomes, which will take £25 million from people in the north-east next year, £90 million the year after that and £180 million in the third year.
	At the same time, of course, the Government are giving millionaires a tax cut. What does that do? It puts £40 million into the economy of the north-east and £640 million into the economies of London and the south-east. That is not simply unjust; it is foolish. The north-east is contributing all the time to the savings the Chancellor of the Exchequer demands, but it is not receiving its proper share of investment.
	What is the justification for those disproportionate cuts when the north-east economy plainly has so much to offer? Could it be that the Chancellor thinks the political battleground for 2015 will be the marginal seats in the east and west midlands? The Government appear to be playing politics with public money.
	I am calling for a one nation approach in which the assets of the north-east are valued and nurtured, in which there is a fair funding formula for public services based on need, and in which investment in infrastructure is based on economic potential not political calculation. I hope very much that the Deputy Leader of the House can pass those messages on to his colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It merely remains for me to wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the whole House a very happy Christmas.

Mel Stride: I want to thank and salute many hundreds—possibly even thousands—of people in my constituency who make a huge contribution every year to the communities in which they live, often on a voluntary basis. I know that it is very fashionable nowadays to suggest that communities are constantly under pressure, disintegrating, transitory or being disaggregated in one form or another, but I am here to reassure the House that in Central Devon community is alive and whole.
	It is invidious to single out individual organisations and individuals, of course, because for every one I mention there are many I will not have time to mention. None the less, some have been particularly special to me as a Member of Parliament over the past couple of years. I want to start with a gentleman called Brian Warren, who has run an organisation called Farm Crisis Network for the past decade or so. It provides pastoral support to our farming community, which, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, has been under considerable pressure over many years. The foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 had its epicentre in Hatherleigh in my constituency, and many of us still remember to this day the pyres burning, the burning cattle and the pall of black smoke that filled the skies above Devon. It was a very difficult time. We are also aware of the difficulties associated with bovine TB and the challenges of milk prices, which are under pressure from supermarkets. Brian has done an extraordinary job with his colleagues on an entirely voluntary basis, providing compassion to many farmers in my constituency who have much needed it.
	I want also to thank all those who are involved in the 125 town and parish councils that I have scattered across my 550 square miles of Devon. I can assure hon. Members that I do not manage to get round all of them on a regular basis—there are too many—but many people give up a great deal of their time, and that is much appreciated. I particularly thank the town clerks of my larger towns—Judith Hart in Buckfastleigh, John Germon in Ashburton, Terry Westwood in Bovey Tracey, John Carlton in Chudleigh, Martin Maggs in Crediton, and Don Bent in Okehampton. For all the people they serve, a big thank you.
	I have had quite a lot of involvement with the Royal British Legion this year. It does an extraordinary job for many well deserving men and women and the families of those who fight on our behalf. We have heard much about Afghanistan this afternoon. The Royal British Legion is not just the custodian of remembrance. It also provides practical help to individuals and families, and I am particularly grateful to the Royal British Legion in Ashburton. I should like to thank Maurice Mann, David Lewis, Kath Pugh and Bob Shemeld for the support they have given to the legion locally.
	I thank Sandra Coleman, who has looked after the museum, the Valiant Soldier, which was a pub that was closed in Buckfastleigh in 1965 and has been preserved exactly as it was the day that it closed, including the coins and the change in the till. In addition to looking after the museum, Sandra has started a project to preserve and archive the history of the town. I was privileged to have been present when she was awarded the freedom of the town of Buckfastleigh in July this year.
	I salute Sue Eales, a lady who had fostered many children in and around Ashburton. She provides them with the love, happiness, respect and security that we would all like to see our children receive. She is a very special lady, one of those great unsung heroes, and I am very proud to be able to mention her in this debate. I mention also Deborah Sterling, who has fought hard for youth services in Ashburton, especially a new skateboard park, and her son, for his imagination in designing the park.
	Peter Mallaband, who lives in New Park near Bovey Tracey, has assisted me a great deal in the work that I and many others in the House have done in respect of park home legislation and in trying to improve the rights of park home owners. Peter has always been immensely generous with his time, not just to me, but to other local residents in other local parks in my constituency, including those who live in Buckingham Orchard in Chudleigh Knighton, who have had a particularly difficult period over the past few years.
	I thank Wendy Brown and Sue Goode, who run the Crediton food bank and whose services will be much appreciated and in many cases much needed this Christmas. I thank Chris Gibbs, who has done a huge amount to support his community of Tedburn St Mary, so much so that he was in the vanguard of that village being voted the best village in England and Wales some years ago on the strength of its community cohesion and the vibrancy of the community there. I was privileged to work with him in fending off a proposed permanent road closure that would have much inconvenienced the local villagers.
	I would like to mention Sally Hordern, who lives in the village of Exbourne and has fought very hard to get a new community store there ever since the village store closed just over a decade ago. She fought through all the obstacles. I had the privilege earlier this year of opening that extraordinary store, which is partly underground. It has a beautiful design and is a great monument and tribute to her and all those who worked on the project.
	I would like to pay tribute to the people of Kennford and Buckfastleigh, who endured some of the worst flooding the country has seen recently, and I was grateful that the Prime Minister was able to come down to Buckfastleigh to meet some of the residents. One of the things that struck me was that, although it was an absolute tragedy, particularly for those affected, it was also an opportunity for the community to come together, and they did so magnificently.
	I would like to salute Mary Stephenson, a constituent who has done a great deal regarding prisoner rehabilitation and looking after families whose loved ones have gone to prison. I spent some time with her at Channings Wood prison earlier this year and was much moved and impressed by her project and by her work and dedication and that of her colleagues.
	I would like to thank Paul Dobbie, who runs the Room 13 youth facility in Okehampton, a vibrant and positive place, and Chris Marson, who lives in the small village of Northlew in the west of my constituency. He has managed to improve the broadband connection significantly by employing ingenious new technologies, which has helped the village a great deal, and he has also furthered the new community store there.
	It remains for me finally to thank the staff in my office, Chris Yeo and, in particular, Dominic King and Mike Knuckey, for supporting me and all my demanding ways. I also wish to thank my family—

Edward Leigh: And me? Will my hon. Friend thank me?

Mel Stride: I will thank my hon. Friend in due course.
	I thank my wife Michelle and my three daughters. I also wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, your family and, indeed, your millions of admirers up and down the country a very happy Christmas and hope that I have many more speaking opportunities at your behest in 2013.

Lindsay Hoyle: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that will be the case and that Mrs Hoyle will be very impressed.

David Lammy: I think that the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) has reduced the number of Christmas cards he needs to send this year—the rest of us have taken note for next year. I congratulate him on his remarks.
	Many hon. Members have seen fit to talk about our armed services this Christmas and to help us reflect on those serving abroad. It is right then, as I begin my contribution, to recognise that Christmas is a time when families come together and people often drink quite a lot. In those circumstances, we should also reflect on the police service, because sadly there are accidents on our roads, scenes in our clubs and bars and, as is sometimes the case in family life, there are domestic disputes, which increase over the Christmas period. Our police will absolutely be on duty this year, as they always are.
	Sadly, in the past two years London Metropolitan Police Service has lost 16% of its work force. Thanks to the coalition Government’s cuts of 20%, the Met faces a £148 million shortfall over the coming year, which is equivalent to 2,690 officers. Of great concern to Londoners at the moment—indeed, it is in this afternoon’s Evening Standard—is the fact that London looks set to lose many of its police stations, moving from 133 24-hour police stations across the capital to 71.
	Hon. Members will recognise that some London boroughs are very large. The idea that in a London borough such as Lambeth, or Hackney, or Haringey, which stretches from Highgate and Muswell Hill right across to the corner of Tottenham, Edmonton and up to Finsbury Park, there could be only one 24-hour station is hugely alarming. I fear that the Mayor’s understanding of helping to reduce crime might be helping to reduce the ability of the public to report crime, which is what will happen if this set of closures goes ahead.

Helen Goodman: Is my right hon. Friend really telling us that there will be one police station per 100,000 people in the capital?

David Lammy: In fact, it will be worse than that, because the London borough of Haringey, which has a population of about 250,000, will have one 24-hour police station. My hon. Friend will understand the concern in my constituency, which was the epicentre of riots in August
	2011, when my constituents watched their homes and shops burn in front of their very eyes. She will recognise that in the days following those riots, the big thing that people in London and, unfortunately, other cities were saying was “Where are the police?” It is deeply worrying to tell them that there will be a diminution of police stations on this scale, as well as fewer police officers.
	Boris Johnson was in my constituency last week, and he said that the police station in Tottenham would not close. However, we want to drill into the detail, because on the basis of the figures that have been presented to us, with borough commanders touring their MPs’ offices with proposals, it looks as though in fact it will close. Even if it does not close, it is possible that no police will be in it, because there is a difference between those who run the police property services, and therefore the police stations, and those in charge of actually marshalling the police. It is outrageous that we could be in a situation in Tottenham where there are no police officers in our police station.
	You, Mr Deputy Speaker, and others will have seen in the newspapers the discussion about access points, points of contact and pop-up shops. Yes, of course we want to make our police station accessible, but constituents who come to me to talk about gang crime, and are worried about the young man they know is in a gang and want to report it quietly, do not want to negotiate with someone having a latte in a coffee shop or with someone in Sainsbury’s. We need to be very careful about access and contact. What people understand, all over the world, is a police station. People know what it is and they know that the police have a freehold on the building so that when they move into the area it will still be there in five years, 10 years and 15 years. They have seen these neighbourhood offices but know that so many of them have the shutters down because there is a short-term lease and it could be gone next year. That is not what they want from the police service.
	The Mayor’s office has palmed off the task of stakeholder consultation to borough commanders, many of whom are finding themselves in deeply politicised budgetary decisions. The deputy Mayor, Stephen Greenhalgh, has deigned to visit every borough as part of a public consultation process in the new year, and we should be grateful for that, although I am deeply concerned that he might find himself embroiled in an inappropriate situation. I hope that he will spend more than just an hour in Tottenham discussing this very important consultation.
	This is happening at a time when we see not only a threat to our police station but to our fire station—the second-busiest fire station in London—which is facing closure under proposed budgetary cuts. The fact that closing or, at least, halving the capacity of such a vital fire station is even being considered shows how uninformed, ill-judged and reckless is the way in which these efficiencies and cuts are being handled.

Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend will know that the fire brigade in London has requested that the Mayor review the strategy to see how quickly fire appliances can get to fires. It believes that, at present, the strategy is inadequate, but the process has been put back by a couple of months, so the public are not able to review it. Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the ability of appliances to reach fires in time?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The clock does not tick during interventions, so they have to be short. When a Member intervenes, somebody will have to have their time cut at the end, and for those who have already spoken to intervene afterwards is unfair on other Members. The Member who will speak next will be very upset if I put him down the list. We can all work together; it is Christmas, so let us have a bit of good will.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend raises an important point. People are deeply concerned about the ability of the fire service to get to fires. When serious flames stretched on to the high road in my constituency and went on for hours, we needed our fire service. Even during that incident there were concerns, given what was happening, about the ability of fire services to get to those fires. This is serious. We are seeing the decimation of the London fire service. No fewer than 17 fire stations are earmarked for closure across the capital.
	I am conscious that other colleagues want to make important contributions, so I will end my remarks. Over the Christmas break, which is a serious time, we will see how important our emergency services are, and that is always the case. This House will need to return to the subject. I hope that the Mayor will go into the detail of what is being proposed in London, because I am deeply concerned that, over the coming months and years, many Londoners and, indeed, many in this House who might need to rely on the police or fire service will find that they are not there for them in the way that they require.

Edward Leigh: Why is it that, 65 years after 55,000 of them—young men of Bomber Command—gave up their lives for our freedom and national survival, they are still waiting for a medal? If not now, when so few of them are left with us, when?

Barry Gardiner: May I take this opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, to wish you and, indeed, all the officers and servants of this House the season’s greetings and the very best for Christmas and the new year?
	It has been a privilege this year to attend the 25th anniversary of the Brent pensioners forum in my constituency. The forum has been led and championed by Vi Steele.

Bob Blackman: indicated  assent .

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman knows the forum well from his time in Brent. It has done a fantastic job over the past quarter of a century, fighting for elderly people and ensuring that their voice is heard.
	The impact of fuel poverty on people such as members of the Brent pensioners forum has led me to consider the UK’s energy policy, which focuses on three things: first, how to drive investment of £110 billion into our electricity infrastructure and £200 billion into energy as a whole; secondly, how to avoid the cliff edge of 2016 to 2018, which Ofgem has characterised as a period when
	reserve margins will be dangerously low, or, as other people say, when the lights might go out; and thirdly, how to tackle fuel poverty.
	We—the Government and Parliament—have been like industrious phlebotomists transfixed by the diseases of the blood, but ignoring how the blood supply contributes to the health of the whole organism, which is the UK economy. Energy is the lifeblood of industry and manufacturing in this country. It should be seen as an integral part of a wider industrial and economic policy. Where this Government have gone wrong is to treat energy policy as ancillary to—or, if one believes the Treasury’s rhetoric, sometimes even running counter to—our wider economic goals. The key question that we should ask about the Government’s Energy Bill, therefore, is not about the strike price or whence the single counterparty will get its money, but how it will promote sustainable growth and jobs in the UK.
	The Committee on Climate Change was established to act as an adviser to Government to present coherent proposals about future energy policy that meet our need for sustainable growth, while respecting the cross-party commitment to reduce CO2 emissions. That was intended to depoliticise energy policy as far as is possible. Earlier this year, the Committee on Climate Change recommended three things in its report to Parliament. It said that
	“a carbon objective should be set and a process put in place to ensure that this objective is achieved”.
	That target is not in the Bill. It said that
	“it is important that technology policy objectives are set to resolve current uncertainties about the future for less mature technologies.”
	Those objectives are not articulated in the Bill. It said:
	“There should also be a clear statement as part of the Government’s planned Gas Generation Strategy that there will not be a second ‘dash for gas’”.
	The Chancellor has given what amounts to a clear statement to the contrary and the Department of Energy and Climate Change is banking on 27 GW of new gas capacity. The Energy Bill is an unprecedented and wholesale rejection of the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change. Politics has been given primacy over evidence.
	This year, hopes ran high that we would see the go-ahead for the Don Valley carbon capture and storage for coal scheme. The European Commission had rated it one of the top 10 most attractive schemes in Europe. Even though £3 billion of the original £4 billion budget was cut, the Government still had £1 billion earmarked for a coal-fired CCS pilot. The other day, when the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) was asked why his project had been ditched by the Government, he replied that what the UK really needs is CCS for gas, because it fits better with our future power mix. Insanity! The International Energy Agency projects that at current rates, the world will be burning 59% more coal in 2035 than it is today. Even if every country were to fulfil its mitigation pledges, the rise in coal burning would still take it to 21% above current levels. Gas CCS might help the UK to reduce its emissions during the dash for gas that the Chancellor wants to foist upon us, but the future of the UK economy lies in developing the technology for coal CCS that we can export around the world.
	I am an environmentalist. I believe that the world must move to decouple growth from carbon emissions. However, I understand that coal is the major world fuel and will continue to be so for many decades to come. To have a sustainable future, therefore, we must sequester the emissions from coal in the medium term. It must be part of our integrated energy, climate and industrial strategy to develop CCS for coal. Was the £1 billion ever really there? I do not know. Was this a project that we should have prioritised? The answer is clear: yes it was.
	The recent report from Cambridge Econometrics has tried to link energy policy with wider industrial strategy. Its findings are significant for a Government who appear to be determined to move us away from renewables and into gas. The report shows that although offshore wind currently costs more than gas, it also creates more jobs in the UK and has a bigger beneficial impact on the UK economy. The trouble with the new dash for gas is that it will limit the capacity for investment in other technologies that ultimately may be more important for both our energy policy and our industrial policy.
	It is important to recognise two things. Gas is an essential part of the energy mix in the UK, as it has the flexibility to cope with intermittent peaks and troughs in the supply from renewables, and the peaks in demand from industry and the public. Gas is being proffered as a solution to the 2016-18 cliff edge, when electricity demand could exceed supply. But it is not a solution. Even the gas stations that already have consent will not come on stream quickly enough to meet that potential shortfall. A possible solution is to make the capacity mechanism available to coal-fired power stations in the short term and use them to provide the load that we need. That might also help to stop the loss of jobs and the closure of pits, and avoid the building of numerous new gas-fired power stations that will lock us into much higher levels of fossil fuel emissions in the long term, while making us feel virtuous in the short term as coal emissions fall.
	The recommendation by the Committee on Climate Change to include carbon targets in the Bill is important because this is about the long-term certainty and stability that business and investors need. The Government argue that the legally binding targets for 2050 are still in place, but few of us in Parliament or business will be in our current positions in 2050. Business needs not just a 40-year aspiration, but clear staging points and standards in 2020, 2030 and beyond, to ensure that our energy infrastructure is invested in and properly structured so that it can deliver our emissions reduction targets by 2050.

Bob Blackman: It is a pleasure to follow my near neighbour and constituency MP, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), in this debate, and I join him in celebrating the 25th anniversary of Brent pensioners forum, and that of St Luke’s hospice, which is on the border of our two constituencies.
	May I pay tribute to the late Betty Geller who sadly died in the early hours of Sunday morning? Betty was a leading light of the Conservative Friends of Israel, Harrow East Conservative association and, most particularly, the campaign for a fitting tribute for Bomber Command
	and its veterans. Sadly, her husband died some 30 years ago—a premature death that was probably as a result of strain put on him during the war. I was privileged to attend Betty’s funeral on Monday morning, and it is fitting to pay tribute to her in the House. Sadly, she did not live to hear the Prime Minister’s announcement that, at last, her husband and all those who put their lives on the line to allow this country to be free from fascism are to be honoured.
	I want to take this opportunity to mention some of the problems caused by the use of pre-packed sales when companies enter administration, and the related pre-packed phoenix companies that can be created. It is right to encourage and promote entrepreneurship in this country. Indeed, in this tough economic climate we desperately need entrepreneurs who will put their spirit and creativity into protecting jobs that the UK needs. In some cases, however, it appears that the law is being abused by unscrupulous company directors for their own purposes at the expense of hard-working employees. I have heard of a number of examples of that, and it gives me no pleasure to note that one such case comes from my own constituency.
	On 16 June 1997, Medi-Vial Ltd was founded. By 2008, because of the financial crisis, the company had fallen into difficulties and sought to manipulate its employees into working for a period of time without pay. The 55 members of staff, who were naturally desperate to protect their employment, took the directors at their word in the hope of securing the company’s long-term future and ultimately obtaining the money they were owed. On 3 August 2008, Medi-Vial was liquidated and the entire work force was left without work—except for the directors, Mr and Mrs O’Connor.
	I am able to say that with confidence because on 2 September 2008, Mr and Mrs O’Connor established Vial Manufacturing Ltd in what one presumes was a pre-packed sale. They were able to secure all the assets for the phoenix company, without the liabilities of the debts such as the money owed to the employees. So well did that work and so easy was it to achieve that they went on to establish Glass Vials and Closures Ltd on 27 October 2011. Once again, that was preceded by the liquidation of their previous company.
	Although I have no details about the second and third companies, I can provide greater insight into the first. Many of its 55 employees spoke English as a second language, and that lack of proficiency in English made it easier for the directors to make excuses and avoid explaining why wages were not being paid. My constituent, Mr Pacey, was an employee of Medi-Vial who went to great efforts both during and after its liquidation to obtain justice for him and his colleagues. It is worth noting that he went to a list of agencies and individuals as part of his campaign. He won an employment tribunal relating to the compensation of his earnings. He also took the matter to the police, the Insolvency Service, my predecessor as MP, the Serious Fraud Office and others.
	None of those institutions could offer any remedy whatever—hon. Members can imagine how frustrating that was to Mr Pacey and the other employees, who obviously had a problem seeing their previous employers go on to operate a new business just one month later, in the same practice, on the same premises, using the same equipment, employing the same management, using the
	same suppliers and having the same customers. The only difference was that the employees had all lost their jobs.
	I have previously brought the matter to Ministers’ attention. In January, the then Minister with responsibility for employment relations, consumers and postal affairs, now Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, informed the House:
	“Having taken account of all the issues…the Government will not be seeking to introduce new…controls on pre-packs at this time”.
	He continued by assuring the House that:
	“The Insolvency Service, an Executive agency of BIS, already monitors compliance by insolvency practitioners”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 23WS.]
	The overall benefits of pre-pack sales are doubtless genuine and substantial. Statistics show that all employees are transferred to the new company in 92% of pre-pack cases, compared with 65% of employee transfers in a business sale. That is to be welcomed, but we must not turn a blind eye to cases in which directors deliberately abuse the process.
	In those circumstances, insolvency practitioners are required to report the directors’ conduct to the Insolvency Service and suggest that they should be disqualified from being involved in the management of the company, but that system does not appear to be working, as is suggested by declining disqualification rates in the past decade. In 2002, 45% of reports from insolvency practitioners resulted in a disqualification, but by 2011, only 21% did.
	The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has said that legislation is not the right option for solving the problem, but will the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills explore other measures? It is largely a matter of ensuring that we prevent those who abuse their position from doing so, but in order to protect the benefits to the system, I suggest that extra resources are needed so that the Insolvency Service can concentrate its efforts on disqualification. It could introduce an electronic system so that insolvency practitioners can submit reports online. In making those recommendations, I am conscious that we should not attack those who, through no fault of their own, place their companies into administration and wish to carry on their business—on the contrary, I have every sympathy for people who seek to create wealth and jobs—but the key point is that we cannot allow people to abuse their position and their employees.
	I conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by wishing you, the staff of the House, all colleagues, the staff of my office, and Members who have given me support in the past few days, and, in particular, my wife, who has been long-suffering for many years, a very happy Christmas. I wish everyone a happy, peaceful, prosperous and healthy new year, and trust we can look forward to returning to the House and enjoying many such debates in future.

John McDonnell: I wish to draw attention to the mismanagement and—some fear—worse of contracts by Hillingdon council and to
	call on the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to send in commissioners to take control of the council, clean up its affairs and restore confidence in local government in my area. For some time, I have raised in the House my constituents’ concerns about the administrative competence and probity of Hillingdon council, but recent events have confirmed the need for more serious and urgent action.
	The recent background is as follows. Two years ago, I learned of Hillingdon council’s proposal to demolish a residential home for the elderly in my constituency called Triscott House and to rebuild it as a modern elderly care facility. The elderly residents were decanted to other establishments, and the new facility was to open in September 2011, but the unit was not ready. Many of the elderly people who had been allocated a place in the new residential home were promised that there would be only a short delay. Ten months later, in July 2012, the home was still not open, and I was contacted by the families of the elderly people who were promised a place. The situation was extremely distressing. A lady in her 90s, with all her belongings packed in packing cases, was waiting to move, in tears. She had been promised, month after month, that her move was imminent. Others in their 80s and 90s were equally upset at the delay. I made representations to the council on behalf of them and their worried families. I, too, was promised that the situation was being resolved and each month told that the move was to take place. Eventually, the new facility opened, after a 14-month delay and dreadful distress caused to my constituents.
	Rumours were flying in the area about the delay, and I called for an independent investigation into the catastrophic failure of the council to deliver the new facility on time. The council refused. There was coverage in the local press, and after that I was sent anonymously information on the cause of the delay. Information is difficult to retrieve from Hillingdon council because the administration places any reports that expose failings or poor administration—or worse—in the secret element of its cabinet meetings. It argues that this is done on grounds of commercial confidentiality, but it is certain that it is to cover up incompetence and possibly worse. In this case, the information I received confirmed that the delay to the new elderly care facility was because of a dispute with the contractor for the project.
	The contractor was a company undertaking another contract for the council that required additional expenditure. The contractor was told to load the cost of that additional work on to the bill for Triscott House, the residential home for the elderly, and then told to charge the amount as “design fees”. Effectively, this was laundering money from one contract to another to the builder. Other works were undertaken by the contractor on other sites, it appears without contracts, and also charged to the Triscott elderly care home account, again as design fees.
	Major contracts are approved either by the leader of the council or a cabinet member, and the responsibility for overseeing the performance of council officers in relation to such projects lies with the leader of the council or cabinet members. The question I have been asked by residents is what those people were doing when all this was going on.
	After the exposure of the Triscott House fiasco in the local press, the floodgates opened, with information being sent anonymously or by residents about other
	council contracts. The information revealed that the new swimming pool leisure centre, recently constructed in my constituency at a cost of £30 million, began construction without a contract, only by exchange of letters of intent. Now the centre has sprung leaks, and without a contract the council is exposed to the cost of repairs.
	Five years ago, and again in 2010, I raised the disgracefully poor performance of the council contractor with regard to the repair and refurbishment of Avondale flats in my area, which resulted in one of my constituents, Mr Bernard Fagan, being injured and then compensated by the council. It has now been revealed that, as we suspected, there were irregularities in the award and administration of these housing maintenance contracts. They do not comply with council standing orders.
	Complaints have repeatedly been made about the delays to adaptations funded by the disability facilities grants. Concerns have now been raised that there were irregularities in the process for awarding those contracts. Another Hillingdon resident has contacted me because he has challenged the council over its expenditure of £1.17 million on three consultants since April 2010, which the council legal services department has now confirmed was without tendering, with no specification for the works and with no contracts.
	I have raised these issues with my local councillors in the ward I live in, but they are unable to respond to me as virtually all these issues have been forced on to the secret part of the cabinet agenda by the ruling councillors. My local councillors have been threatened with the criminal law if they discuss matters with me. However, my ward councillor has informed me that he has written to the chief executive, the borough solicitor and the leader of the council to urge that the district auditor and the police are now brought in to investigate these activities. So far he has received a truculent reply from the leader of the council, claiming that it is an attack on staff. It is not an attack on staff: it is an attempt to hold councillors and senior well-paid officers to account.
	The situation has gone beyond anything that is acceptable. Up to £50 million of work and contracts are now associated with irregularities in Hillingdon. My constituents and local tax payers are suffering now and cannot wait any longer for redress. At meeting after meeting, residents are alleging backhanders, brown envelopes and various fiddles. I have no answer for them. We need action now, and that is why I am urging the Secretary of State to send in commissioners to clean up this mess. Before I came to this place, I was in local government for 20 years. I have not seen anything on this scale since the 1980s, when some activities caused so much concern in local government. There may be reasons why contracts were not awarded and why a £30 million swimming pool was done with a letter of intent. If those reasons are valid, then fair enough. However, my understanding is that they have opened up the council to real risk. The scale of mismanagement is appalling.
	People know me in this House for my independence of mind. I do not care whether this council is controlled by Labour, the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. If this was happening under any political administration, I would be saying the same thing. We need action now. We cannot rely on the existing administration to tackle these issues. That is why I think the drastic step of the Secretary of State sending in commissioners to clean
	this stable out, which I have never called for before anywhere, is absolutely essential if we are to retain any confidence in local government and local administration in my community.

Stephen Gilbert: It is always a pleasure to speak in these end-of-term Adjournment debates. Their value has just been aptly demonstrated by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has sent a chilling note through the Chamber, and a warning call that I hope the authorities will listen to. It is always a great pleasure to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), with his tour de force of constituency issues. Sadly, I can take no pleasure in having to raise in this House access to flood insurance and support for flood-hit local authorities yet again.
	Last night, we saw torrential rain across the south-west cause considerable damage to businesses and homes, and disruption on many key travel routes. In my constituency, the villages of Par, Bugle, St Blazey, Gorran Haven and Mevagissey have been flooded again. Across Cornwall, other communities in Polbathic, Altarnun, St Keverne and Gunwalloe have all been hit too. This is not uncommon for the people of Cornwall—just four weeks ago we were hit with flooding. The House may remember that shortly after the general election in 2010 Cornwall was hit with serious flooding too, occasioning the Prime Minister to join me in some of the communities I have just mentioned.
	I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks and give praise to the work of the emergency services overnight—the firefighters, the police, ambulance workers across Cornwall and the south-west, and the 100 Cornwall council staff—who were out all night helping people to move to safety, and trying to minimise the damage to properties and to life. However, we are not out of the woods yet. The Met Office and the Environment Agency are predicting continued severe weather in the south-west. The EA currently has 19 flood warnings and 52 flood alerts across the region—stark warnings about large swathes of the south-west being at imminent flood risk due to the saturation levels already in the ground.
	It is clear that we cannot always build flood defences that will protect people against all eventualities. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) was in his place—he is an assiduous campaigner on environmental issues—he would agree that with climate change we will see increasingly unpredictable weather across our country for years to come. However, we in this House should be able to ensure that everybody has access to insurance when the worst happens. That sounds very simple, but the Government, flood groups and insurers have been grappling with the problem for a long time and seem no closer to resolving it. The typical cost of flood damage to a home is approximately £30,000, and approximately 200,000 homes are at risk of flooding.
	The last Government agreed a statement of principles—a five-year agreement—that meant that flood insurance had to be included in house insurance. It was a worthy goal and a good step forward, but it was not perfect. For example, it did not apply to homes built after October 2009 and, more importantly, made little attempt
	to help those in the severest flood-risk areas, which was bewildering, frankly. Despite that, however, that statement of principles was a worthy effort to ensure that when flooding hit a community, people were able to rebuild their lives. Unfortunately, it expires next June, and at the moment the House is yet to see any concrete proposals for how this important issue will be dealt with after that point. Communities across the country, including those that I represent, are already struggling to get affordable flood-risk insurance, even though it might technically be available. I urge my right hon. Friend to look into this issue and ensure that the proposals come forward in a timely way and can be adequately debated by the House.
	I have raised before my concerns about the Bellwin scheme—the threshold at which central Government support comes in to help local authorities hit by flooding. In Cornwall council’s case, the existing Bellwin scheme has a threshold of 0.2%, which is currently £1.41 million, as the amount it must defray before any assistance is forthcoming from central Government. This scheme is outdated and does not seem to make any allowance for the new unitary authorities. If Cornwall still had a two-tier local authority system, that threshold would be just £58,000. That, coupled with tight rules limiting funding to the additional costs incurred in dealing with the immediate emergency only, basically means that the likelihood of an emergency incurring eligible expenditure greater than the threshold is now significantly less than if the two-tier were still in place. We need to modernise and update the Bellwin scheme. Cornwall is also a fire and rescue authority, but the scheme does not factor in those parts of the country where the principal local authority is on a unitary basis and also the fire and rescue authority.
	I turn to the final reason why I would like my right hon. Friend to investigate whether the Bellwin scheme can be reconsidered. Why is the dedicated schools grant used in the calculation of when a threshold is reached by a local authority? It is another instance of where the Bellwin scheme has not kept pace with the change in how local government across our nation is administered. At the moment, Cornwall council estimates repair costs of £2.5 million on the highways alone. When flooding occurs, it is not only a threat to life, but it destroys homes, wrecks businesses and leaves a significant clear-up operation in its wake, and that operation often falls to the local authority to fund.
	The biggest Christmas present for all those across the country facing flooding risk would be to ensure that, as we go into next year, flood insurance is available and affordable, and that, when floods hit, local authorities have the support they need from the House and the Government to ensure that the clean-up can happen in the swiftest possible way.

Guy Opperman: Northumberland has much that it could teach the rest of Britain. My constituency is home to a vast number of civic groups, charities and volunteer organisations and people who give up their time to get involved, help their communities and improve people’s lives. They are passionate about the place in which they live. From the team in Tarset
	who organised the first oil-buying groups, pioneered a bastle trail and created the famous Murray henge, to Joan Russell, who runs her fantastic community allotment in Prudhoe, and Tom Martin, who led the creation of a community orchard in Wylam, there is a real sense of engagement, of getting involved and of local people creating the community they want.
	Of all the places in the country that would engage in the concept, spirit and actuality of localism, this is the place. Indeed, when the previous Labour Government wanted to get rid of the district councils and move to a single unitary authority, the people robustly said that they would like to keep Tynedale and Castle Morpeth. The Labour Government famously held a consultation, complete with referendum, lost it and pressed on regardless. As a result, we now have Northumberland county council in its current form.
	The Conservative party manifesto in 2010 promised specifically that
	“people in each neighbourhood will be able to”
	choose
	“what kind of development they want”.
	In 2010, I found that that commitment to localism resonated loud and clear with local voters, who wanted a better kind of local politics. Very rarely if ever do Government know best on local issues. For the first time since Queen Victoria sat on the throne—not dissimilar to you, Mr Deputy Speaker—this Government’s Localism Act 2011 saw real power going from Government back to the people, putting into reverse gear 100 years of centralisation. My simple phrase is: “Trust the people”. The Localism Act 2011 did just that.
	Planning is the key aspect of the 2011 Act. It is most welcome for its transformation of the process that people have to deal with. We ripped up the previous top- down regional spatial strategy, which was a Westminster-enforced, target-driven system, which in any event failed to produce any houses, with the lowest house building since 1929. To deliver the change, a local development plan is required from each local authority. The plans will be crucial to deciding planning applications. The Government guidance is that local plans must be in accordance with section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the national planning policy framework. The only mandate is that the authority must complete a plan. Already, 48 local plans have been adopted since May 2011, and more than 65% of councils in the country have published a plan for public consultation. Those are accompanied by more than 100 smaller neighbourhood plans. The vast city of Manchester, for example, went from start to finish in less than 18 months, finishing in the summer of 2012.

Bob Blackman: The process of local plans is key for local people participating in democracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite wrong for any councils to drag their feet on this, postponing the process of getting democracy into planning at a local level?

Guy Opperman: I entirely agree. It does not really matter which political party is in charge of the local authority. I am criticising Northumberland county council, which happens to be Liberal Democrat in its persuasion, but I would still be criticising it if it were Conservative or Labour. It is a question of competence and leadership,
	organisation and logistics; it is not about money. Lots of authorities up and down the country have been able to sort this out over an 18-month period—we should bear it in mind that authorities have up to three years to do so. Otherwise, 65% would not have gone down this track.
	Everybody knows that the plans have to be completed by spring 2013. Indeed, I was present when the then Communities and Local Government Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), came to Stannington in Northumberland in August 2011 and met NCC planning officers and developers. He stressed the need for NCC planning officers to press on with their plan. It is not as if the local authority has not been warned. It appears certain that Northumberland will now not complete its plan by the March 2013 deadline. I have had that confirmed to me in person by senior councillors and it is an open secret at county hall. Indeed, it appears that the situation is worse: the plan might not be produced and finalised before 2014.
	The county council’s failure to deliver the local plan will be an unmitigated disaster for Northumberland. The law is absolutely clear. If a planning authority has an up-to-date local plan, with identified sites to meet five years of objectively assessed need, it has all the powers it needs to resist speculative applications for development. However, if an authority does not have a plan in place or even a draft plan containing an objective assessment of housing needs and identifying five years of developable, deliverable sites, it runs the risk of speculative planning applications from developers and its decisions being overturned on appeal. As the Minister with responsibility for planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), told the House on 7 November 2012, an authority with a local development plan has nothing to fear from the Planning Inspectorate.
	The Liberal Democrat county council’s failure will, I sadly suggest, be a green light for developers to run amok—in Ponteland, in Darras Hall, in New Ridley, in Ovingham and possibly in the west of Hexham. All those applications are mooted and the list is growing every month. Nor do we have minerals or renewables plans as part of the local development plan. That makes it hard to resist applications to do open-cast mining on green belt land, and our landscape is being affected by the random development of wind farms with little consideration of the cumulative impact.
	I am not against development; far from it. I see the need for more houses. I have supported developments at the police headquarters in Ponteland, on the Prudhoe hospital site, and in villages such as Allendale. I must be the chief advocate for house building on the redundant Stannington hospital site. I even brought the developer to Westminster to meet a Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government, to try to make it more likely that that development could happen in a sustainable way.
	In the past, I have been harsh in my criticism of developers and big business seeking to cash in on the council’s slow progress in delivering a local plan. Perhaps that is just the old socialist in me, but I do not believe that the market always knows best. However, I am all too aware that Northumberland county council is the
	architect of all our problems. By failing to create a local plan, it is failing Northumberland. I do not blame the staff at county hall, who are as bright and capable as those at any county hall in the land. I do not blame the squeeze on council budgets, as more than 50 other councils have delivered a plan. A comparison with the other authorities shows that that is not the issue. This is an issue of competence, leadership, management and organisation.
	The situation is not satisfactory; it is divisive. Worst of all, it creates a sense that democracy is not working, that big business holds all the cards and that the protector of local people’s rights, the local authority, is failing them. I am helping local people all I can, but as the county council is stuck in the slow lane, I must ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether there is anything the Government can do to aid that incompetent administration. How can we ensure that cumulative impact is considered so that applications are not treated in isolation, creating a patchwork quilt of development with no real thought to its impact on local people? How do people challenge developers when local authorities are not prepared to fight challenges to their local decisions which are appealed?
	I know that, if we had a local plan, we would have the tools to fight, and the local will to create a sustainable Northumberland, created by the people, for the people, and with appropriate development for the people. The sad fact is that there is a fundamental lack of leadership to drive things forward and get things done. To say that there was better leadership on the Titanic would be unfair—accurate perhaps, but unfair. An expedited plan would provide a way forward. Without one, I fear for my county, and I fear the sense of unfairness that local people will feel. That cannot be good for sustained locally driven development, and it is not good for democracy.

Bob Russell: These are difficult times for local councils, and with further financial constraints confronting them, I pay tribute to the councillors of all political persuasions and officers who find themselves in ever more difficult situations. This is not an experience that I faced as a council leader, but one thing I do understand is the importance of ensuring that public money is not wasted or used for purposes that are inappropriate for a local authority or ultra vires under local government legislation.
	In the hope that the Department for Communities and Local Government will pursue the matter with vigour, I bring to the House’s attention the extraordinary situation involving the former leader of Essex county council, whose exploits have been much publicised in recent weeks in local newspapers and on local radio, and in some national newspapers. It has been revealed that, from March 2005 to January 2010, he spent £287,000 using the council tax payer-funded credit card that he had been issued. That equates to a rate of more than £1,000 every week for five years, all tax free. Items of expenditure included 62 overseas visits to such places as Uganda, New Zealand, China and the United States—not places normally associated with the local government activity of Essex county council—often accompanied by council officers and councillors.
	I can now reveal, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request that I made to the council, that the same leader first had a credit card issued in “mid-2002”. On the assumption that his spending pattern in the years from 2002 onwards was the same as that in the five years following the first published item on 9 March 2005—£89.21 for a lunch at the Barda restaurant in Chelmsford for the leader and an unnamed county councillor—it is likely that the leader’s credit card spending to fund his lifestyle of expensive tastes in the UK and overseas, paid for by Essex council tax payers, was in the region of £450,000. His last entry, funded by the good people of Essex, was on 27 January 2010 when, with an unnamed county councillor, he billed £77 for lunch at the Loch Fyne restaurant in Chelmsford. Last week, a motion was put forward at a meeting of Essex county council in respect of the credit card bills of the former leader, who resigned from the council in 2010, but it was not agreed.
	I can perhaps best describe what happened by quoting distinguished journalist Mr Simon Heffer, who is a council tax payer in Essex, from his column in the Daily Mail of Saturday 15 December:
	“Tory-controlled Essex County Council decided this week not to sue their disgraced former leader…for the £287,000 of ratepayers’ money he spent flying around the world with cronies and dining in style. This is a rash move. In four and a half months, the council is up for re-election. I am appalled that Essex Tories have such a cavalier view of financial accountability. Anyone who votes to put them back into office next May is mad. Did they take this view…because some of them, too, have things on their conscience?”
	Simon Heffer may say that; I could not possibly comment.
	In fairness, the current leader is a breath of fresh air. He was issued with a credit card on taking over in May 2010, and it was cancelled in August 2011 having never been used. That shows how much the previous leader abused his position and took Essex council tax payers to the tune of circa £450,000 to fund his expensive tastes and lifestyle. It is also fair to say that a new broom at county hall has ensured that new procedures will not allow such a situation to happen again, but it is not enough to clear up the stables—although pigsty might be a more appropriate description.
	What has happened needs to be investigated. As the council is not prepared to have an independent investigation—I believe that is important; otherwise all county councillors will be tarred with the same brush—it must be for central Government to do so. Unless there is an independent inquiry, the stench will remain. That is not in the interest of Essex county council, its councillors and officers—a whitewash is not acceptable.
	It is difficult to believe that the former leader was able for eight years to live the life of Riley paid for by Essex council tax payers, without others knowing. After all, many of the credit card bills refer to the leader being accompanied more often than not by officers and councillors. Why did the internal audit not notice the monthly credit card payments and ask questions? Why did the external audit not notice and ask questions?
	On 17 October last year, a council spokesman said:
	“All employee expenses are subject to audit and public scrutiny”—
	but not, presumably, those of the former leader. How is it that the entire finance department and line management within it, leading in due course right into the office of
	the chief executive, did not notice and draw attention to it? Or is it the case, as has been put to me, that some people did try, but that there was a climate of fear and bullying at county hall? People were afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs. This attitude was not confined to the leader, as some councillors and some senior officers were involved. Only an independent inquiry can get into that barrel of apples to identify any rotten ones that are still in place.
	I have been advised by a lawyer that he is prepared, at no personal cost to himself, to look at the paperwork and help draft a claim against the council and its officers for an apparent, and I quote,
	“breach in fiduciary duty to Essex ratepayers who are owed the opportunity to see these matters rectified.”
	It is said that the credit card records from 2002 to 2005 have been destroyed, but I believe the council’s records should still show the total credit card sums claimed by the former leader, even if the individual items cannot be listed. Perhaps the credit card company’s records exist, which an independent inquiry could look at.
	The roll-call of countries visited by the former leader between 2005 and 2010 could well make him Britain’s most travelled politician. At 62 visits, that is probably more than the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, and it is certainly not what one would expect of the leader of a local authority. Usually with at least one officer, his Cook’s tour reads as follows: United States of America, eight times; Belgium, 15 times; Poland, twice; Croatia and Sri Lanka, twice; Cyprus, Bulgaria and Austria, three times; France, three times; Slovakia and Italy, three times; China, six times; Hungary, Germany, Holland and India, three times; Australia, New Zealand, Uganda, Hong Kong and Finland, twice; Vietnam, Albania and the Bahamas, ending with his last overseas trip to Canada. In December 2005 Essex council tax payers funded the leader, a councillor and an officer to attend the winter Olympics in Italy at a cost of circa £1,400.
	Perhaps an example of the leader’s extravagance is a visit he made, accompanied by a council officer, to Hungary on 17 May 2006 for a one-day meeting described as the “First Assembly of European Regions”. Putting to one side the fact that the wonderful county of Essex is not a region, which begs the question why he was there in the first place, the visit was stretched out over a total of five days and involved staying in three separate hotels—two in Budapest, which is 230 km distant from where the one-day conference was held, one of them five-star, with the other described as “art-nouveau extravagance” and “the World’s most famous spa”—having expensive meals at restaurants and hiring a car. This is a grand total, including flights, of £1,530.
	Other interesting entries, completely contrary to local government rules and expenditure legitimacy, relate to the council leader using his credit card to pay for attendance at Conservative party conferences for himself and up to three officers of Essex county council, including their travel and hotel accommodation costs. One of his popular watering holes was an establishment in Chelmsford called Muddy Waters where in December 2007 he treated county officers to a meal, paid for by council tax payers, which came to £736. In July 2008, he claimed £42.94 for
	a Little Chef breakfast. I know that the Little Chef Olympian breakfast is good, but I think customers can get four for the price he paid, as he pigged himself into some sort of record book. Another interesting item is the £327.50 he paid for
	“gifts purchased for Transformation Awayday”
	from the Crooked House gallery in Lavenham, Suffolk.
	That list surely in itself comprises an appalling betrayal of the people of Essex by the then leader of the council, but I must now refer to a further abuse. Throughout this period, the leader was also based at another establishment for which five full-time employees of Essex county council had security passes. A sixth, listed as his secretary in the directory of this other establishment, was actually based at county hall, and taxpayers paid all the office costs. When not on council business, the leader was frequently chauffeured here and there at all times of the day and into the early hours by a car and driver provided by the council. The five council officers were providing services that were not part and parcel of the leader’s position with Essex county council, but the council tax payers of Essex were paying all the costs. It is difficult to estimate what they amounted to over what was an eight-year period.

Stephen Gilbert: Does my hon. Friend agree that these outrageous claims must be properly investigated?

Bob Russell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Gilbert, you knew when you rose to intervene that your colleague’s time had almost run out. You have already spoken, and I hope you want other colleagues to have a chance to speak as well. I do not want to have to shave a couple of minutes off other Members’ speaking times. I think you would agree that that would be totally unfair.

Bob Russell: I agree with what my hon. Friend said.
	As I was saying, it is difficult to estimate what the costs amounted to over what was an eight-year period, but staff salaries and all associated costs would easily take the sum over the £1 million mark, excluding the approximately £450,000 costs incurred through the leader’s credit card, to which I have already referred.
	What has happened in Essex brings all local government into disrepute, which is unfair on hard-working councillors and officers, including those in Essex. Only a full independent inquiry into the stewardship of the council from 2002 to 2010 will serve to draw a line under this most disgraceful period since Essex county council was established in 1889.

Charlie Elphicke: I rise to celebrate Christmas. In particular, I want to celebrate Christmas in Dover, where we will have a new hospital built next year, after a decade in which our hospital services were decimated and progressively withdrawn. It is therefore great that health care will be moving forward.
	I also rise to celebrate the fact that Dover has won the lottery. A £1 million grant has been awarded to Dover for the betterment of the community.
	Most of all, however, I rise to celebrate the fact that today we have had news that the port of Dover will not be sold off to the French, or whoever, but will instead stay as it is and, I hope, become a community port and a landmark of the Prime Minister’s vision for the big society.
	It was a shock to everyone in my community when in 2009 the former Prime Minister put the port of Dover up for sale as part of his car boot sale. That dismayed my community, and it became a key issue. A key pledge of mine was that the port of Dover should not be sold off, but should remain for ever England.
	In autumn 2010, therefore, we launched the alternative: Dover should become a people’s port owned by the community. Our concern was that if it were to remain a trust port, every decade or so there would be a proposal to sell it off, and we do not want the port to be sold overseas. Rather than have to face that future threat ever again, we decided it would be better for the community to come together and buy the port.
	The community bid was launched by none other than Dame Vera Lynn, to whom I and the community owe the deepest thanks and gratitude. Without her support, the port and the white cliffs above it would probably have been sold overseas, and we would be waving goodbye instead of celebrating a great Christmas present.
	I thank Kent county council and Dover town council for their staunch support throughout this period. I also thank everyone at the Emmaus homeless charity, which is based at Archcliffe fort in Dover. Although they have no home themselves, they are concerned about our community and our port and the stake all of us hold in our society, and they agree that Dover should remain for ever England. They supplied the stewards for our rally back in 2010 when we launched the proposal for a people’s port. I also wish to thank Unite the union—Alan Feeney and his colleagues. They are not natural bedfellows for a Conservative MP, but they came together to support us all in working together, across party, across area and across disciplines, to get the best for our community.
	Together, we set up the People’s Port Trust, which is chaired by Neil Wiggins. Its president is Sir Patrick Sheehy, who used to run British American Tobacco. That is a large company, so he is an experienced businessman who knows what he is doing. We also have Algy Cluff, who opened up the North sea to oil exploration, Pat Sherratt, Councillor Nigel Collor and many others. They all came together to set up the alternative. We got funding from the city—we raised the money that was needed—and we tabled a counter-offer to the Prime Minister in November 2010. That was really important because there is no point in just saying no to a proposal; we have to put forward an alternative. Our alternative was that we, the people—our community—should come together to buy the port.
	We then held a referendum, because we thought that it could not be a people’s port without the people endorsing the proposal. In March 2011, a referendum was held in the Dover parish asking:
	“Do you oppose the private sale of the Port of Dover as proposed by the Dover Harbour Board and support its transfer to the community of Dover instead?”
	Some 98% voted in favour, on a greater turnout than the previous district council elections. So I am pleased
	that Ministers have listened to our community, held a proper consultation and decided that it would not be the right thing to sell off the port of Dover overseas.
	The current situation is that the sell-off will not happen under the Ports Act 1991. The real issue is what happens next. I hope that Ministers will look at the position, at how the community can come to own the port and at how we can have the big society in Dover. That really matters because it is not just the community, the local authorities, my electors and the unions who want this; the ferry companies and businesses want it, too. So we have complete unity of purpose and unity of desire across all strands of our community that the port of Dover should become a community port. This is important because a community port could be an engine for the regeneration of Dover and returning Dover to being the jewel in the crown of the nation that it once was. This could be a template for Newcastle, for Belfast and for how we can have renewal and regeneration in our seafronts and coastal towns to ensure that they can achieve maximum employment, success and attractiveness once again. I thank the Government for their decision today to chart the way ahead, and I hope that in the new year we will get great progress towards delivering the Prime Minister’s vision for a big society and the people’s vision for a community port.

Neil Parish: It is a great pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and I am particularly interested in the port of Dover becoming a people’s port. Interestingly, until 1528 we actually had the whole town of Calais, so it would have been a terrible shame to have sold off Dover.
	I wish to discuss the situation in my constituency. Ever since the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs talked in the spring about a drought we have had nothing but rain. We have had a series of floods throughout my constituency, and I want to pay tribute to all the people who have gone out to try to protect their homes. The communities have pulled together extremely well. We have had flooding in Bampton, which has caused a great deal of problems, and in Tiverton, where the Grand Western canal burst its banks. Of course it will cost a huge amount of money to put the canal right. I ask anyone who wants to support the Grand Western canal to do so, because it a great asset to not only Tiverton but the country.
	We have also had huge problems with flooding throughout the Axe valley, particularly in Axminster. There is another high flood alert today on the River Axe and we have had a lot of flooding through there. There have been problems with blocked culverts and blocks under the railway, and they need to be sorted out for the future. There has also been flooding in Uplyme and Seaton.
	In the village of Feniton, we have had a real problem with a great deal of flooding. The village is like a funnel, and the water comes right down to the bottom of the village and floods several bungalows at the bottom because it cannot get underneath the railway line. Recently, an inspector’s decision has allowed more houses in
	Feniton on appeal with no money to contribute towards a flood prevention scheme. It seems to be absolute madness to add to the village before we have got the water under the railway line and away. We need to consider these questions very seriously.
	When the rain finally stops and we can look back on what has happened, we need to consider, despite the fact that the Environment Agency has worked well in providing flood warnings, how we manage our rivers and waterways and ensure that they are properly dredged. It is perhaps not feasible in this day and age to have staff from the Environment Agency who can go around, look at the sluices and reduce the water levels, but I do not see why an honorarium cannot be paid to individuals—farmers, perhaps, or local residents—who can reduce the water levels much more quickly because they are on the spot and can deal with the problem at that moment. We must learn the lessons from what has gone on.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) talked about the agricultural problems. Not only did we face foot and mouth disease in 2001, but we have seen the problems with TB, the weather and the high price of feed, silage and cereals. We also have a problem with Schmallenberg again, which is a disease that affects new-born lambs and calves. Even with the early lambing flocks, some 30% to 40% of lambs are being born dead. I hope that that is just happening at the start of lambing and that the situation will improve, but we have a vaccine that is being looked at and validated and I urge the Government to put it in place. It will not help with this year’s lambs, or with calves, but it will help in the future. We cannot just take it for granted that the disease will go away. It is spread by midges and last year it affected only a few sheep and cattle, but this year it has had a big effect, so we need to deal with it.
	I want to raise a very interesting issue about dogs going into schools. I recently visited a charity called Dogs Helping Kids. It is run by a lady called Tracey Berridge, who trains the dogs for up to 18 months or even two years so that they can go into schools. She has taught the dogs to read. I have not gone completely mad, Mr Deputy Speaker—the dogs probably do not actually read—but I have seen the process demonstrated. The dog is shown a sign saying “Sit”, and because it is a short word the dog sits. It is then shown a sign saying “Lie down”, and because it is slightly longer the dog lies down. Every time the dog is shown a sign, it does what it says.
	I am not joking—hon. Members can imagine how impressed the children are when they see the dog reading, and then sitting and lying down and so on. The children are then very keen to read more. The dog sits with the child and there is a person with them—it is not the dog talking to the child, because, as I said, I have not gone completely mad—who explains to the children more about reading. Those who find difficulty in reading react very well to the dog. In many schools children who were playing truant or had many problems at home and did not want to come to school now want to come to school because the dogs are there.
	There is a serious point here. A charity such as Dogs Helping Kids is a good one to support. I have always been a great lover of dogs, as are many people in this country. Dogs can be therapeutic and useful in schools. The charity run by Tracey Berridge trains the dogs
	properly before they go into schools. It is no good just taking any dog into a school. If it hurt a child, that would cause major problems. We should encourage dogs going into schools, possibly as part of the curriculum, so that children learn that a relationship with a pet can be good for them. I recommend that to the House.

Martin Vickers: I am not sure I can follow that, but I will follow Members who have been somewhat critical of their local authority. I cannot compete with the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), and I am usually reluctant to criticise the local authority publicly as I, like all Members, have to work with it for the betterment of the local area. However, one issue has been dominating the local media in north-east Lincolnshire in recent weeks—the closure of the Scartho road swimming pool, following a sham consultation.
	The pool is approaching 50 years of age and it is accepted that significant investment is required to give it a new lease of life. I should mention that the pool is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who is unable to be here today but is aware of my intention to raise this matter as the pool serves both our constituencies and the wider area reaching into the Gainsborough and Louth and Horncastle constituencies.
	The hon. Gentleman and I have been supporting local residents, and in particular members of the Save Scartho Baths campaign. There is overwhelming local opposition to the proposal. The hon. Gentleman went so far as to use his Christmas card to highlight the council’s folly. Members may have seen that, as it reached the pages of the national press. When we met the council leader and his deputy a couple of weeks ago, it was clear that this was, shall I say, not entirely welcome. Whether or not it will take hold as a campaigning tool for other council members, only time will tell.
	In fairness to the council I should mention that it proposes to build a new 25 metre pool on the site of the Grimsby leisure centre, but this is smaller than Scartho baths and will not include a diving bay. Following the introduction of the Localism Act, I know the Government are keen to ensure that local authorities undertake proper consultation before making decisions about major local facilities, such as the one that I described. I acknowledge that it is not unknown for councils to go through what could be described as sham consultations, but the one undertaken by the North East Lincolnshire council on this issue reached a new low.
	The consultation was undertaken following a public outcry, and residents were expecting to be able to indicate whether or not the Scartho pool should be refurbished. The only mention of the pool was in one of the questions which said, “The following facilities are coming to the end of their life, which would you replace? Please choose one of the following: Grimsby swimming pool or Grimsby leisure centre.” Other questions were, “Should the council continue to provide quality leisure facilities within the borough? Yes or No.” It would be difficult to answer anything but yes. Question 2 was, “Given the tough decisions the council is having to take around substantial reductions in funding, should it replace ageing leisure facilities?” Again, it is hardly possible to answer no. That is no way to run a taxpayer-funded, democratically accountable local authority.
	The hon. Gentleman and I have met representatives of a company that is offering to carry out a free survey to determine whether an alternative proposal is viable, which might result in more being done with the funding available, but the council has refused the offer. The council has been contacted by another company which thinks that an alternative specification or a change of policy would give better value for taxpayers’ money, but it has again refused the offer. The council has refused to consider these alternatives. It is possible that those companies, having studied the proposals, met council officers and visited the sites, would conclude that the council’s proposal is the best way forward. It is unlikely, but it is possible. It is a disgrace that the council is denying those opportunities to deliver more for taxpayer’s money.
	Campaigners have consulted a wide range of experts, and I am sure that the demand for transparency suggests that the council should at least stop and consider alternatives. It is also possible that additional funding might be available. Having spoken with the sports Minister, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I believe that it is now time for the council to pause and reconsider how best to move forward with the backing of local people.
	It would be difficult to summarise the situation better than one of my constituents has done in a letter to the local paper, that excellent journal the Grimsby Telegraph. My constituent states that, having heard the council state that
	“this current administration is committed to investing in tourism and leisure, I find it very reassuring. My difficulty is understanding how and why they seem to be getting it so wrong. Any reader of this paper will have noticed that they are getting little or no support for their proposals. The majority of the public, especially those who use our leisure facilities, find no justification in pulling down Scartho Baths. Indeed, it is just the opposite.”
	I hope that that plea will reach the local authority and further consideration will be given to its decision.
	I want to mention another issue of particular concern. East Coast, which is of course a Government-operated rail service, has just published its new local timetable. It states: “This new timetable shows you all our train services as well as local train services that connect conveniently with ours.” Compared with the previous edition, East Coast has removed Grimsby and, by implication, Cleethorpes, as well as Scarborough, Huddersfield, Sunderland and Middlesbrough from the timetable. I have written to its managing director but, as the Department for Transport has some influence in the matter, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will convey my thoughts to the Secretary of State for Transport and that by the time the new timetable comes into force next May, Grimsby and the other towns I have mentioned will have been restored to their rightful place.

Tom Brake: The range of subjects we have heard about this afternoon is unparalleled, from dogs that teach children to the merits of funding trips for council leaders to spa towns. I will try to respond to the individual points Members have made but, given the time constraints, will focus on those who are in still in the Chamber.
	The contribution we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) contained an unparalleled range of issues. Were I to address them all, there would be no time left to respond to any of the other contributions. I hope that he has been able to get all his concerns off his chest. It will probably be simplest if I draw his speech to the attention of all Departments, because it contained something for them all, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I would love to spend more time on that, but I hope he will understand that time constraints prevent me from doing so.
	I thank the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for giving me notice of the issue that she wanted to raise about judicial reviews. She said that they come thick and fast. Indeed, the Government have found that since 1974 the number of them has risen from 160 to 11,000 last year, so they are coming thicker and faster year on year. We want to address that. She expressed concerns about the consultation, but I hope that she will none the less participate in it, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said that he would do so. The purpose of the consultation, among other things, is to hear Members’ views. The hon. Lady might simply provide it with a copy of today’s Hansardso that it can refer to the important points that she made and the experience on which she has drawn to highlight her concerns. The Government are embarking on this with an open mind in seeking to address the balance between reducing the burdens on public services and promoting access to justice and the rule of law.
	The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) raised very effectively the issue of visas for Chernobyl children. The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair earlier was described as Father Christmas in that he was able to offer speaking opportunities to all Members this afternoon. I am afraid that I cannot bear the gift that my hon. Friend would like, which is the extension or renewal of the scheme to support Chernobyl children. He will be aware that in November 2010 the Government set out their intention to stop funding that scheme, although they have agreed to provide a total of £200,000 in the last year that it will run. I will put to the FCO his request that the Home Office and the Department for International Development liaise to see whether there is a way in which they can move forward collectively on this.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) raised several issues, including the House business committee, a matter that is still ongoing and on which progress is being made. He welcomed the medals that will be given to those on the Arctic convoys who supported and saved our country at a very difficult time. He raised concerns about Atos Healthcare that I suspect would be echoed by many Members in all parts of the House. In his case, he focused on the length of time that it is taking to process appeals. Delays that run into 57 weeks are clearly unacceptable, and that must be addressed. He expressed concern about deaf children in relation to the personal independence payment and said that it
	might be a step backwards for them. Although he is not in his place, I urge him to raise that with the Department for Work and Pensions to see what its response is.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark talked about visa renewals and the so-called premium service whereby people pay a substantial sum of money to ensure, theoretically, that their visa renewal is dealt with more quickly. Unfortunately, all too often their experience is different, and if something about their visa needs further work they end up going back into the slow lane with everyone else and therefore derive no benefit from having paid a premium. He identified a solution that I will draw to the attention of the Minister for Immigration, who, I am sure, would want to draw it to the attention of the UK Border Agency. My right hon. Friend welcomed the announcement on the Arctic convoy medals, expressed concerns about judicial reviews, and finished with a quote from Charles Dickens.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) raised his concern that the criminal injuries compensation scheme would no longer be available in the case of a constituent of his. I do not know whether he has asked the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to investigate that specific case, but he will be aware that the Government have made changes to the scheme. We want to focus on the victims of the most serious crimes, which is why we have retained the maximum compensation available for a single injury at £250,000.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the local overseas allowance, the specific purpose of which is to contribute towards the necessary additional local cost of living for service personnel who are assigned overseas. It is also supposed to be flexible in order to address the different circumstances of people abroad. If he has not already done so, he could refer the details of the case he raised to the Ministry of Defence to see whether it assessed the allowance entitlement correctly.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned housing allowance for service personnel and called on the MOD to work on it with the devolved Administrations and local government. It is principally the responsibility of local governments to decide what systems they use to prioritise housing for ex-service personnel. The Local Government Association might be able to take up the issue, in order to achieve a collective, more positive local authority approach.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Ofcom and asked whether the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills could look at providing a level playing field, so that Royal Mail could operate under the same level of regulation as others in the same business, such as TNT.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) brought his extensive expertise on defence, which the House values greatly, to the issue of British personnel deaths in Afghanistan. I would like to take this opportunity to commend our service personnel for operating in the most demanding of environments and demonstrating immense personal courage. As the hon. Gentleman has said, 438 members of our armed forces have died while serving in Afghanistan and their loss is keenly felt. On behalf of the Chamber, I extend my sympathies to those families and friends who have lost loved ones. A much greater number of personnel have also been seriously injured or wounded in Afghanistan.
	Our strategy is designed to enable the country effectively to manage its own security and prevent its territory from ever again being a safe haven for international terrorism. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s point that no one in this House will blame our servicemen and women if their mission is not successful. They have fought the battle that they needed to fight, but it is clear that many of the enormous problems on the ground are beyond their control. Their remit has also gone beyond the military remit set at the outset.
	I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for giving me advance notice of her speech. She is concerned about the impact of Government policies on the north-east. At the same time, however, she highlighted that the north-east is still the most successful region in the country, with the biggest car plants in Europe and the biggest chemical plant in the UK, so in some cases things are working very well in her region and we support that. Whereas in the past there was an awful lot of focus on financial services in London, the Government are trying to ensure that we focus much more on the manufacturing industry, which would, of course, benefit her region. We are starting to see some improvements, with manufacturing exports going to the world’s emerging economies. There has also been an increase in exports in the past 12 months, so her region should benefit from that too. I could reel off other statistics if she would like, but she may get frustrated by that. She referred to the £64 million for the upgrade of the A1. There is also £61 million to build more than 3,300 new homes for affordable rent and £17 million to return more than 1,500 empty properties to use in the north-east and Yorkshire. Although the scale of Government activity is perhaps not what she would like, there are positive developments in her region, which I hope she will welcome.
	The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) referred to a large number of people. Other Members alleged that that was to cut down on the cost of his Christmas cards. I am sure that that is not the case. I cannot possibly mention all the people he mentioned. I say to him, however, that the risk of mentioning a large number of people is that everyone in Central Devon who reads this debate and whose name is not on the list will wonder why they were excluded. I congratulate him on highlighting a number of important community activities, including the new community school, the youth services and the fostering work of people in his area. He has put on the record his thanks to a large number of people and groups, and we would all like to echo that.
	The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who is not in his place, mentioned first that people can drink quite a lot at Christmas. Those who attended the Leader’s reception last night will know that there was very little drinking at all. On a more serious point, the right hon. Gentleman said that we need to think about the police at this time of year because, although we may be about to go on recess and will relax over Christmas, they have the responsibility of dealing with some of the fallout of Christmas. Regrettably, as many Members will know, one of the fallouts of Christmas is an increase in domestic violence, which the police have to deal with.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to the threat of a police station closure in Tottenham. He will know that the Mayor of London has said that the police station
	will not close. However, he is clearly concerned that the hours of operation may be different. I say to him that this issue is surely not just about the availability of a building, but about ensuring that people have a way of quickly and effectively reporting crime. Many people would want to report crime from home if they could, rather than having to go to a police station.
	There are ways and means of dealing with some of his concerns that do not necessarily require the number of police stations to be maintained exactly as it is throughout London. London Members will be aware that some counters in London receive very few visits, if any. There are strong arguments for saying that police resources could be used more effectively by supporting people in other ways, such as patrolling the streets, rather than sitting behind a counter, waiting for a caller who does not come.
	I certainly echo the concerns of the right hon. Member for Tottenham about fire station closures. There is a risk of closures throughout London. I am sure that the Mayor’s press office will have been following this debate closely and will want to respond to him about those concerns.
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) made such a short contribution in relation to medals that I was not quite sure what he was talking about. I think that he was talking about the fact that men who served in Bomber Command will receive only a clasp. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence will have noted his concern that that is not sufficient recompense for the sacrifice that they made for us 60 or so years ago.
	The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) commended Brent Pensioners Forum on its 25th anniversary. We certainly join him in that, but there are other areas where I am not able to join him. He clearly feels that the Government’s energy policy is ancillary to the wider economic goals. I do not accept that; I think that the two are intrinsically linked. I hope he agrees that clarity on the investment that will go into the energy industry is as welcome as it has been lacking. I know he has concerns about the extent to which the Government are addressing fuel poverty, but a wide range of different measures are in place at a time that is challenging—as he knows and as the Government know—in terms of energy prices and because we are seeking to address a substantial deficit.
	The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) paid tribute to Betty Geller and the role that she played in his constituency. He also referred to the important issue of phoenix companies, and businesses have raised concerns about that with me as a constituency MP. One business in my constituency provides insulation. It tends to go in at the end of a contract and is often not paid because it arrives at the end of the whole process. It has seen phoenix companies re-emerge with the same directors in place. The hon. Gentleman is concerned that the system is not working. If he has not already done so, perhaps he will write to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and set out the precise details of the case of Medi-Vial to which he referred, so that we can consider whether there are ways of improving the system to ensure that directors who are not fit to run companies are precluded from doing so. He made a sensible suggestion about the Secretary of State exploring further measures such as electronic systems to report problems on line.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)made serious allegations about the activities of Hillingdon council that have not gone unnoticed. Those allegations are now on the record and I expect the council will want to respond. If he has not already done so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will communicate his concerns to the local district auditor, which will want to investigate those serious allegations. I am surprised if a new swimming pool has been built without a contract—

John McDonnell: Would you like to see the report?

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position whether I would like to see the report, but I trust that he has read that report carefully. If what he says is the case, it concerns me greatly. I am sure that Hillingdon council and—if he communicates his concerns —the district auditor, will want to pursue the serious issues raised.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) spoke about flooding and listed villages and towns in his community that have been affected. Flooding is clearly a real and ongoing risk to his constituents, and he mentioned the 19 flood warnings currently in place and the £30,000 of damage that is typically caused to a home by flooding. The future of flood insurance is a priority for the Government and discussions with the Association of British Insurers are continuing. However, the Government do not want to comment on the detail of those negotiations at this stage as conducting such negotiations from the Dispatch Box is not good practice.
	We continue to seek a new approach that is better than the statement of principles—which, as my hon. Friend said, is not perfect—and that genuinely secures affordable flood insurance without placing unsustainable costs on other policy holders and the taxpayer. The Government’s primary role is to reduce flood risk, and in recognition of that an extra £120 million was announced in the autumn statement for flood defences in England over the spending period. That is on top of the £2 billion that has already been committed. My hon. Friend raised interesting issues about the Bellwin scheme, and I hope that the Department for Communities and Local Government will respond to his specific point about what he believes are anomalies in the way it works.
	The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) named a number of constituents whom he thought worthy of mention, and I certainly agree. He also highlighted how the Government are committed to localism and reversing the decades or indeed centuries of centralisation in this country. That reversal is probably welcomed by Members on both sides of the House, who recognise that the pendulum had swung too far. We are now swinging it back the other way.
	On the hon. Gentleman’s specific concerns about Northumberland, the Government have set out clearly our commitment to the protection of the green belt, ensuring that more than a third of England is safeguarded from inappropriate development. The national planning policy framework states that the Government attach great importance to the green belt, the fundamental aim of which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
	Subject to the outcome of consultation, it remains our policy to abolish the previous Government’s top-down regional strategies, which threatened the green belt in around 30 towns and cities. We have not built enough housing for decades. Unless we tackle that, future generations will have nowhere to live. That does not mean that the countryside will be concreted over for housing. There is no Government policy on the amount of land needed for housing provision, and local councils and communities are best placed to determine how housing need should be met.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to ask a number of specific questions for the Department for Communities and Local Government, to which I am sure it will want to respond.
	I am afraid I did not make a note of the different countries that were visited by the ex-leader to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) referred. Clearly, it was a large number of countries. Like him, I express some surprise that the ex-leader of said council has found it necessary to visit quite so many continents. He could learn about local government in some of the countries my hon. Friend named, but I suspect he took more to them than he took away. My hon. Friend needs to raise the matter with the local district auditor, as I am sure he has, so that he can investigate. I thought my hon. Friend would call at the end of his speech for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to be brought in to introduce an expenses system to keep control of expenditure at Essex county council. I waited, but the call did not come.
	I should tell the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) how much my family enjoy visiting Dover castle, which is a fantastic destination for families. He welcomed the new hospital coming to his constituency. If I could temporarily abandon my hat as Deputy Leader of the House, I would say, as the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, that I would welcome a new St Helier hospital in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman referred to the port of Dover remaining as a community port. I lived in France for 10 years, so I hope he objected to the French not because they are French, but because they are not British.

Charlie Elphicke: indicated  assent .

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman nods in agreement, so he does not object to the French because they are French. I understand why he welcomes the news that his port will be kept for local people—it is a positive development.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) was concerned about flooding. Many Members in flood-risk areas are worried about developments in areas that are liable to flood. He made an interesting proposal on dredging and whether an honorarium should be introduced. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs might want to investigate that sensible idea of an honorarium so that local people can take responsibility for ensuring that sluice gates are open at the right time.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to—

Neil Parish: Schmallenberg.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It is not something that I encounter often in my suburban constituency. He highlighted the risk of Schmallenberg and said that it is a growing challenge for sheep farmers.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of dogs helping kids. He may not have noticed, but at that point, Mr Deputy Speaker raised a sign encouraging the hon. Gentleman to sit, which I thought was cruel.

Neil Parish: I ignored it.

Tom Brake: Indeed—the hon. Gentleman ignored it. I had an interesting conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who tells me that pigs are nifty football players. Perhaps there is a role for pigs in helping kids.
	Last, but not least, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) demonstrated very well the purpose of the pre-recess Adjournment debate, which is to enable Members of Parliament to raise constituency matters. He raised, very effectively, the issue of Scartho baths; as a frequent swimmer myself, I like longer pools to swim in, not smaller ones like that proposed in his neighbouring constituency. His plea for his local authority to listen is now on the record, and I hope that it will do so. He also raised concerns about the east coast main line, and I will ensure that the Department for Transport is aware that Cleethorpes has disappeared. That is significant, and I know that the Leader of the House is also concerned about that as a user of that service.
	I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, your staff, the House staff and staff in the office of the Leader of the House for helping, supporting and advising us, and I wish everyone a happy Christmas.

Lindsay Hoyle: I wish to take this opportunity to wish Members all the best for Christmas and the new year. I am sure that Cleethorpes will be returned. If not, those responsible will no doubt find out that they are shark bait.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

AZERBAIJAN (HUMAN RIGHTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Helen Goodman: It is a great privilege to initiate the final debate of the year this afternoon. At the beginning of November, I went to Baku to attend the UN internet governance forum, and I was taken there by Nominet—I wish to put on record my thanks for its generosity.
	It might seem strange for the United Nations to hold an internet governance forum in Azerbaijan. The internet is one of the most free means of communication—it was instrumental in facilitating recent political uprisings during the Arab spring—but unfortunately the same cannot be said in Azerbaijan. Before discussing the human rights situation, I wish to take a moment to describe this country on the Caspian. It is a very beautiful, wild and mountainous country in the Caucasus. At no point in its history has Azerbaijan been a liberal democracy, so unfortunately it has no such traditions to recover. From 1805 to 1991, it was part of the Russian empire, latterly of course in the Soviet Union. In fact, it was in Baku that the Tsars imprisoned Stalin. In the last 20 years, the country has prioritised rapid economic development, based on its substantial oil and gas reserves. It is, I am afraid to say, the spiritual home of the 4x4, and it has an unresolved conflict with its neighbour, Armenia.
	That context may explain the human rights situation in Azerbaijan, but it certainly does not excuse it. This year, Azerbaijan has played host to two major international events. The first, as many people are aware, was the Eurovision song contest. The second was the UN internet governance forum that I attended. Those two events should have been an opportunity for Azerbaijan to step forward and open up. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to have happened, with the authorities clamping down even more aggressively on journalists and critics of the regime.
	At the moment, Baku is plastered with huge posters of President Aliyev, whose father—incidentally—was also president. Most people, when they have photographs taken for political purposes, choose ones that are flattering. Unfortunately, I found President Aliyev’s 6-foot-wide grin more of a crocodile smile.
	The petty reality of life in an autocracy was brought home to me on the first morning when all the traffic on the motorway was held up for 20 minutes to allow the official motorcade to pass through, but the problems are far more serious than that. One might expect a Government who are trying to impress the rest of the world to be on their best behaviour, but while I was there the authorities continued to jam the BBC television channel.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne  Milton .)

Helen Goodman: While I was there, the authorities continued to jam the BBC television channel and they held the trial of Avaz Zeynalli, who was accused of
	criticising the regime. The evidence was claimed to have been videoed, but neither the defendant nor his lawyer were shown the film. Finally, they hacked into the computer of Neelie Kroes’s staff while she attended the conference.
	There is a long history of violence against journalists in Azerbaijan, which is documented by the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety, an Azeri non-governmental organisation. According to the institute, in 2005, Elmar Huseynov, the editor of Monitor, was gunned down in Baku. In 2011, Rafiq Tagi, a critic of Iran and the impact of Islam on Azerbaijan, was stabbed and subsequently died. The level of intolerance is well illustrated by the case of Agil Khalil, who was assaulted and stabbed after investigating reports of trees being burned in an olive grove. In April this year, Idrak Abbasov was attacked by employees of the state oil company of Azerbaijan while filming the destruction of residential properties near an oil field outside Baku. He was beaten unconscious and was in hospital for a month. It is thought that he may have been targeted for exposing human rights abuses in the run-up to the Eurovision song contest. In fact, three weeks previously, he had received The Guardian journalism award at the Index on Censorship freedom of expression awards here in London. There is then the case of Khadija Ismayilova, who I met at the IGF. She had previously worked for Radio Free Europe. Her flat was bugged and a sex video of her, which was filmed secretly, was posted on the internet.
	Amnesty International has asked, in particular, that I raise the case of Mehmen Hoseynov, who is facing five years in prison. He is accused of hooliganism for filming a protest on 21 May. Will the Minister raise his case with the Government of Azerbaijan and call for all charges against him to be dropped immediately and unconditionally? Index on Censorship is also concerned about the cases of Minas Sargsyan, Hilal Mamedov, Anar Bayramli, Jamal Ali and Faramaz Novruzoglu. I have e-mailed the Minister with the details of their cases, rather than detaining the House with the long stories attached to them, so that his office can look into them.
	Those cases are not isolated incidents; they are part of a systematic repression of free speech in Azerbaijan. In Azerbaijan, defamation is a criminal offence. Media workers are persistently defamed and persecuted. Azerbaijan is the top jailer of journalists in Europe and Central Asia. Index on Censorship estimates that there are currently 70 political prisoners in Azerbaijani jails. Freedom of expression, assembly and association are limited.

Bob Stewart: I was personally involved in trying to help during an election in Azerbaijan, but the person I was trying to help was not even allowed to enter the country to stand in the election. Does the hon. Lady agree that, until that sort of thing changes, this will not be a great country?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman’s point is particularly pertinent because there will be a presidential election in Azerbaijan in 2013. It would be excellent if we could see some improvement in the openness of Azerbaijani society, because it would give us greater
	confidence that these elections are freely and properly run and that people expressing many different opinions can stand.
	The year 2011 also saw mass protests in Baku and Guba. They were put down extremely aggressively and some of the demonstrators were imprisoned. Furthermore, the state controls the conventional media—television, radio and newspapers—in a top-down way. Economic development and urban renewal around Baku has been pursued without regard for individuals’ property rights. The property of hundreds of people has been expropriated to make way for luxury developments, and the Government have forcefully evicted home owners, sometimes in the middle of the night. They have been left homeless and destitute. In Baku, many people still live in a Kafkaesque world where news stands do not sell any newspaper. In this situation, the internet provides a news space, and the Government claim that 60% of Azeri people have broadband access, but the American organisation Freedom House’s assessment is that the net is only half free, because the authorities mount cyber-attacks on dissident websites and arrest bloggers and IT users for their political writings on the web.
	As a member of the Council of Europe and signatory of the European convention on human rights, Azerbaijan is not simply breaching human rights, but breaching its international agreements. In fact, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be discussing a draft resolution and report by rapporteur Strasser on political prisoners in Azerbaijan in January. The Azeri Government refused to co-operate with rapporteur Strasser, but Amnesty International says that his report is thorough and extensive.
	Last week, on 12 December, the Parliamentary Assembly’s monitoring committee said:
	“The combination of the restrictive implementation of freedoms with unfair trials and the undue influence of the executive, results in the systemic detention of people who may be considered prisoners of conscience”.
	It continued:
	“Recently adopted amendments to the Criminal Code…which have increased penalties for”
	those involved in
	“‘unauthorised’ gatherings…raise concern, as do alleged cases of torture and…the impunity of perpetrators.”

Christopher Pincher: As chairman of the all-party group on Azerbaijan, I recognise some of the concerns and challenges that the hon. Lady raises. She talked earlier about the expropriation of property and land, but would she not agree that the expropriation of the land and property of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis by Armenia in 1992 is also a cause for concern and very wrong?

Helen Goodman: I do not think that an international conflict justifies Government repression of their own people, whether in areas of conflict—some of the cases, about which I have written to the Minister, relate to the Nagorno-Karabakh problems—or elsewhere. The situation there simply does not justify the abuse of human rights of Azerbaijani people across the country and, in particular, in the capital city.
	Given the situation and the UK’s strong relationship with Azerbaijan, will the Minister tell us what the British Government are doing to put pressure on
	the Azerbaijanis to improve their human rights record? In particular, will the Government support a strong resolution calling on Azerbaijan to honour its commitments and condemn the violation of basic freedoms—the resolution will be discussed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in January? Will the Minister also support rapporteur Strasser’s report on political prisoners in Azerbaijan?
	It is important to remind ourselves that, when the British Government and Parliament stand up for human rights in other places, we do make progress. Last year many of us signed an early-day motion calling for the release of Emin Milli. He was imprisoned after posting a satirical video on YouTube criticising Government spending on importing donkeys from Germany. He was released, came to Britain, was awarded a Chevening scholarship and has just been awarded his master’s degree. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

David Lidington: I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for introducing today’s debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for the interest they have shown.
	This is an important issue. The Foreign Secretary has said repeatedly that the defence and promotion of human rights needs to be a central theme in the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. It is important that that priority is reflected in our engagement, both private and public, with all countries in the world where there are human rights concerns and that we should be consistent in having those conversations with leaders of all countries, whether those with which we have few diplomatic or commercial dealings or those—Azerbaijan is a case in point—where there is an important United Kingdom commercial and investment relationship. In replying to the hon. Lady, I am glad of the opportunity to explain the Government’s position and place on record some of the actions that the Government have taken, and continue to take, to try to support human rights defenders and promote a culture of the rule of law and respect for human rights in Azerbaijan.
	As the hon. Lady acknowledged, Azerbaijan is a young and fast developing country with an increasing presence on the international stage. It was only 20 years ago that Azerbaijan gained its independence from the Soviet Union. It is a committed contributor to the international security assistance force mission in Afghanistan. Azerbaijan was elected as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in October 2011 and, as the hon. Lady said, this year it hosted the Eurovision song contest. It is natural that, as Azerbaijan starts to secure a higher profile and play a greater role in world affairs, so the world will take a greater interest in Azerbaijan’s progress, including in meeting its international human rights commitments. One of the things I say to many of my ministerial counterparts from other countries when we have conversations about human rights is that we in the United Kingdom sometimes find it uncomfortable or embarrassing when the various international bodies of which we are members hold us to account and challenge us over our record on some aspects of
	international human rights instruments, but that is a part of life in the world community today.
	I will look carefully at the texts of the two resolutions that the hon. Lady talked about—from the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—although obviously I will want to see the final versions of the resolutions that emerge from the respective parliamentary debates. However, whether we are looking at the Council of Europe, the United Nations Human Rights Committee—where Azerbaijan is due for its periodic review in 2013—or the reports that the European Commission draws up to examine progress by the six countries that are members of the EU’s eastern partnership, it is important to note that Azerbaijan’s human rights record, like other areas of its development, is rightly under international scrutiny the whole time.
	The hon. Lady made a good point about the forthcoming presidential election. I very much hope that the Azerbaijani authorities will show, in actions as well as words, their clear commitment to a free and fair democratic election, and that they will welcome and facilitate the presence of international observers who will be able to ensure that international standards are met. When I visited Baku in 2010, I had a meeting with the redoubtable Dame Audrey Glover, who was heading one of the international observer teams for the parliamentary elections. It will be important to have international observers with the strength of character and independence of spirit of Dame Audrey who can report openly and boldly to the world community on what is happening during the presidential election.

Bob Stewart: I hope that those people who have fled Azerbaijan will be allowed to go back for the presidential election, perhaps to stand in some capacity in the election. I hope that Azerbaijan will encourage that at the forthcoming presidential election, because it certainly did not do so at the last one.

David Lidington: It is always welcome, and right, when citizens of a country who have been obliged to flee feel that they can return freely. As my hon. Friend knows, however, one of the tragic legacies of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is that people on the Azerbaijani and the Armenian sides of the conflict remain displaced decades later. That is why the United Kingdom strongly supports the continuing efforts of the Minsk group to bring about a resolution to that tragic human story. It is in the interests of both countries, and of the Caucasus region more generally, that we should achieve a settlement of the conflict and create political stability. That would attract greater investment and create more prosperity in the region and allow those people who were displaced by that bloody war to return to their homes.

Christopher Pincher: Does my right hon. Friend support the activities of the Azerbaijan forum for democracy, freedom and human rights in encouraging a free press in that country? Ironically, some people here do not support a free press in our own country. Indeed, some Members of this House would like to change the rules on defamation to make it more difficult to defame the dead.

David Lidington: In my conversations with Ministers, not only in Azerbaijan but throughout the eastern
	partnership, I certainly make clear the importance not only of electoral freedoms but of journalistic and broader media freedoms, so I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
	We share the disappointment of our European partners at the slow progress that is being made in Azerbaijan on implementing reforms that would improve the human rights situation there and bring the country closer to the international standards to which she has committed herself. In addition to our bilateral engagement with the Government of Azerbaijan, we work with local civil society organisations to identify areas in which we can make a positive difference. Our embassy in Baku and officials in London regularly engage with non-governmental organisations and human rights defenders, and we will continue to support a range of projects inside Azerbaijan through our embassy. So far, these have included projects to advance property rights, highlight gender issues, promote media freedom and support monitoring of the legal system. For example, officials from our embassy in Baku met independent media organisations to discuss media freedom in the city of Ganja last month.
	The United Kingdom also continues to raise human rights with Azerbaijan multilaterally. We welcome the human rights action plan, which President Aliyev has approved. The test is going to be translating that action plan into concrete reality and everyday practice. It is important that those commitments start to produce significant results.
	Earlier this month, the Government delegation at the Council of Europe raised a number of human rights issues with the Azerbaijani counterparts, including free and fair elections, press freedom and the need to tackle corruption. We are also reminding Azerbaijan in the light of its own upcoming presidency of the Council of Europe in 2014 of the need to fulfil its obligations, including in relation to strengthening institutions and increasing the accountability of public officials.
	We support, too, the extensive work inside Azerbaijan of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, especially its work on media freedom and the rule of law. Last November, the OSCE office in Baku organised two workshops bringing together print and e-journalists and other media professionals, officials from regional police departments and the Ministry of Internal Affairs to promote further understanding and co-operation. Last month, the OSCE organised a training event on how to bring human rights cases effectively to the European Court of Human Rights.
	The European Union, too, has an important role to play in Azerbaijan’s future. It has, after all, an excellent track record of assisting post-communist countries to achieve European democratic values and norms. Promoting democratic reforms, fundamental freedoms and human rights are key priorities in EU-Azerbaijan relations. We welcome the commitment President Aliyev made to political reform and democratic process in his recent meeting with EU Council President, Herman van Rompuy, and we encourage Azerbaijan to use the EU’s experience in democracy building. Azerbaijan’s membership of the eastern partnership provides her with an opportunity to get the kind of support and experience that will help her to carry through that democratic transition.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply, but because I am not sure how far along he is with his remarks, I want to ask him whether he will commit the British Government to take up the individual cases I mentioned. I do not know whether he is going to come on that.

David Lidington: I was grateful to the hon. Lady for sending my office details earlier this week of the cases she intended to raise. So far, we do not have direct contact with all the individuals she mentioned, but we know that Human Rights Watch does have those individual cases under review—and we support the work that Human Rights Watch is already carrying out. In previous meetings, I have raised individual cases with Azeri Ministers—particularly the case of the blogger Eynulla Fatullayev, who was subsequently released and pardoned. I think that was due not only to my intervention but to a sustained international campaign. I shall certainly ask for further advice on the individual cases that the hon. Lady has raised, so that I can consider opportunities to take up those cases—if, I make this caveat, we judge that that is going to help to secure the outcome that both she and I wish to see, which is a just outcome and respect for human rights and media freedom.
	We played an active role in Azerbaijan’s universal periodic review by the UN Human Rights Council published in 2009. We are not satisfied that Azerbaijan has yet made sufficient progress on some of the recommendations made. Key recommendations in that review included that Azerbaijan
	“effectively investigate and prosecute crimes and violations against journalists and human rights defenders and see that those responsible are punished.”
	The review conclusions also asked that
	“complaints of harassment of journalists and human rights defenders receive prompt response and that adequate measures for their safety are taken.”
	Azerbaijan is scheduled for another review in 2013, and we will not hesitate to press for progress on these points, dating back to the 2009 review, and other issues of concern, including those raised by the hon. Lady today.
	Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are cornerstones of a democratic society. We are therefore concerned about reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International highlighting the difficult environment in which journalists work and the detentions of leading journalists and activists. The UK has raised high-profile cases at official and ministerial level, including in the recent past, and we are certainly willing to do so again. In addition to raising the Fatullayev case, we have met, and have remained in contact with, the brother of Vidadi Iskenderov, a human rights defender and political activist currently serving three years in prison on charges of interfering with the 2010 parliamentary elections. Embassy staff have also visited Shahin Hasani, the leader of the opposition Popular Front party, who is in prison for possession of ammunition, a charge he refutes.
	The Government of Azerbaijan have indicated a willingness to improve the situation for journalists, and we hope rapid action is taken. On her recent visit to Baku to attend the UN internet governance forum, the OSCE representative on freedom of the media, Ms Dunja Mijatovic, commented that she had witnessed
	“the political will of the Azerbaijani authorities to improve the current practices to ensure better compliance with OSCE media freedom commitments.”
	OSCE representatives have worked with Azeri journalists to educate them on their rights. The UK has funded workshops to improve the situation for journalists and activists as well as to provide professional training, in order to help raise journalistic standards and encourage impartial and responsible reporting.
	We have called on the authorities to allow freedom of association in Azerbaijan and are concerned that new laws are due to come into effect in January that will significantly increase the fines for unsanctioned protests. Azerbaijan should avoid obstructing citizens exercising their lawful right to protest. We call on protest organisers and the authorities to work together constructively to find a solution in line with European democratic norms. We will continue to monitor that situation closely.
	On forced evictions and the compensation issue, our embassy is funding projects to increase public awareness of property rights and to promote international standards in order to prevent forced evictions. However, we must primarily look to the authorities in Azerbaijan to accept
	responsibility and play their part in securing a fair outcome. Property rights must be respected and where they are violated independent courts should uphold those rights. We also call on Azerbaijan to uphold the law and ensure freedom of religious practice. We urge the Azerbaijani authorities to adopt a form of non-military service for conscientious objectors to military service.
	The UK is the largest single foreign investor in Azerbaijan. We are proud of our association with Azerbaijan and the work we are doing there to achieve mutual prosperity. Our position as a big investor also confers on us a responsibility to engage seriously on areas of policy where we and the Azerbaijanis may have differences, including human rights and the rule of law. We are well aware of that responsibility. I believe the Government have already shown that they are determined to have conversations, even difficult ones, on such issues with the Azerbaijani authorities, and we will continue to do so.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.